Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A gap analysis to find best practices in philanthropy to support California's community colleges and offer potential solutions to close performance gaps
(USC Thesis Other)
A gap analysis to find best practices in philanthropy to support California's community colleges and offer potential solutions to close performance gaps
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
A Gap Analysis to Find Best Practices in Philanthropy to Support California’s Community
Colleges and Offer Potential Solutions to Close Performance Gaps
Jaqueline Cruz
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024
© Copyright by Jaqueline Cruz 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Jaqueline Cruz certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Lawrence Picus
Marc Pritchard
Dennis Hocevar, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
In the United States, higher education philanthropy totaled $59 billion in giving in fiscal year
2022. However, community colleges receive less than 4% of that support despite serving the
largest and most diverse student population. In California, 1.8 million community college
students, 70% of whom come from diverse ethnic backgrounds, look to the community college
system to pursue economic mobility. This mixed-methods study examined the factors
influencing fundraising success among California’s community college foundations, focusing on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational dynamics. Grounded in a gap analysis and situated
expectancy-value theory, the study addressed the impact of knowledge factors on philanthropic
success, the motivational drivers shaping fundraising outcomes, and the organizational structures
influencing effectiveness. Findings revealed that successful foundations demonstrate experienced
leadership, strategic alignment with institutional goals, and robust organizational resources. Key
knowledge factors identified were declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge, alongside
adaptable leadership skills. Motivational factors center on self-regulation and goal-setting
strategies, while organizational aspects emphasize human capital investments and training in
navigating complex political environments. The dissertation proposes a logic model for
enhancing fundraising effectiveness, guided by SMART goals. Activities include increasing
participation in research-based professional development programs, establishing systemwide
benchmarks using fundraising metrics and institutional data, and implementing systemwide plans
for improved organizational capacity and fundraising infrastructure. The overarching aim is to
strengthen the sustainability of California Community College Foundations, ensuring continued
support for their educational mission and diverse student population. By offering practical
insights and actionable recommendations, this research contributes to the advancement of
v
philanthropy at community colleges and provides stakeholders with a roadmap to strengthen
fundraising efforts and drive long-term outcomes, ultimately enriching the educational
experience for millions of students.
vi
Dedication
To my beautiful family, friends, and mentors for their unwavering support and love during this
amazing journey. A mi Dios bendito, sea la Gloria.
vii
Acknowledgments
I never thought I would make it past 18 years of age. Only by the grace of God am I here,
so I thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for his unconditional love and abundant blessings. I
want to express my deepest appreciation to my dissertation chair, Dr. Dennis Hocevar, for his
mentorship and to committee members, Dr. Lawrence Picus and Dr. Marc Pritchard, for their
support and vital input to strengthen my dissertation.
Thanks to my family, my loving fiancé Fabian, my son Luis, and my girls Kylie, Kassie,
and Kamila for their love, patience, motivation, and support. To my team at Hartnell College,
thank you so much for being the most amazing colleagues and supporters. Lastly, I want to thank
Teresa Matsui and the Matsui Foundation for the honor of becoming a Matsui Scholar and for
providing material resources to help me achieve my dream. To my late best friend Alfred DiazInfante, my sister Luz Cruz, and my father Luis Cruz, for providing me with the resources and
intrinsic strength to succeed in this beautiful doctoral journey.
This next group of people in my life are those I cherish and love for their roles as mentors,
teachers, friends, growth partners, and partners in good work for the students and people we serve.
Thank you for believing in me more than I believed in myself. You are my lifeline and fuel to
continue working to create change in our world: Dr. Raul Rodriguez, Dr. Phoebe Helm, Lucy
Serrano, President Michael Gutierrez, Dr. Willard Lewallen, Dr. David Summers, Mary Adams,
Betsey Pearson, Kurt Gollnick, Beverly Grova, Margaret D’Arrigo, John Romans, Susan Black,
Terri Ugale, Susan and David Gill, Judy Sulsona, Anne Secker, Michael Briley, Steven Goldman,
Dr. Monique Datta, and Professor John Estep. To my USC sisters for their support, Valeria
Molteni, Sharon Sampson, Eleana Liou, Cheryl Moore, Janeen Whitmore, and Theresa Lucas.
viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xiii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xiv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study...............................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................2
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................4
Significance of the Study.....................................................................................................6
Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................8
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................12
Summary............................................................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .........................................................................................13
History of the Community College and Its Role in the Higher Education System ...........14
History of Higher Education Philanthropy for U.S. Universities......................................19
History of Higher Education Philanthropy for Community Colleges in California ..........22
Fundraising Success Characteristics for Community College Foundations and
Challenges..........................................................................................................................24
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................36
Summary............................................................................................................................39
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................41
Research Questions............................................................................................................41
Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................42
ix
Research Setting.................................................................................................................44
The Researcher...................................................................................................................44
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................44
Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................49
Ethics..................................................................................................................................50
Chapter Four: Results and Findings...............................................................................................51
Mixed-Methods Study .......................................................................................................52
Description of the Sample for the Quantitative Data.........................................................57
Description of the Population for the Qualitative Data .....................................................60
Quantitative Findings.........................................................................................................91
Summary of Findings.......................................................................................................102
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................112
Finding 1: Knowledge and Skills.....................................................................................113
Finding 2: Goal Setting, Expectancy, Value, and Motivation .........................................130
Finding 3: Positive Return On Investment.......................................................................135
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Each Scenario ........................................................................147
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................152
Recommendations for Future Research...........................................................................153
Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................154
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................156
References....................................................................................................................................158
Appendix A: Distinction Between Auxiliary Organization and Independent Corporation.........170
Appendix B: Network of California Community College Foundations Survey..........................172
Appendix C: Participant Recruitment Letter ...............................................................................175
Appendix D: Interview Protocol..................................................................................................177
x
Introduction to the Interview ...........................................................................................177
Conclusion to the Interview.............................................................................................181
Appendix E: Request to Access NCCCF Survey ........................................................................182
Appendix F: Approval to Access NCCCF Survey ......................................................................184
Appendix G: Recommendations for Practice Presented to the NCCCF Board ...........................185
Appendix H: Logic Models .........................................................................................................197
xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 43
Table 2: College Rankings Based on Fundraising per Student 59
Table 3: Rankings of Foundations With Staff Size and Total Operating Costs 90
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics 92
Table 5: Pearson Correlations 93
Table 6: T-Test Highest-Performing Institutions Compared to Remaining Institutions 94
Table 7: T-test Suburban Versus Urban 95
Table 8: T-Test South Coast Geographical Area Compared to the Remaining Institutions 96
Table 9: 2012 FCCC Survey Staff Data 98
Table 10: 2023 NCCCF survey Staff Data 99
Table 11: Staff Size, Averaged Raised, and Percentage of Overall Raised by Staff Category 100
Table 12: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 116
Table 13: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation of Community
College Fundraising Practitioners 119
Table 14: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Community College
Fundraising Practitioners 120
Table 15: Pre-assessment Survey 124
Table 16: Post-assessment Survey 124
Table 17: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 126
Table 18: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 128
Table 19: Monthly Pulse Checks 130
Table 20: Return on Investment for Foundations 136
Table 21: Models of Cost-Effectiveness Studies 140
Table 22: Ten-Year Investment Returns per Foundation by Scenario at Net Present Value 142
Appendix A: Distinction Between Auxiliary Organization and Independent Corporation 170
xii
Table D1: Interview Protocol 178
Table H1: Focus Area and Indicators 198
Table H2: Logic Model: Enhance Fundraising Effectiveness for California Community
College Foundations 199
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap Analytical Framework 38
Figure 2: Expectancy-Value Theory of Motivation Theoretical Framework 39
Figure 3: Internal Dashboard: Individual Foundations 131
Figure 4: External Dashboard: Systemwide 132
Figure 5: FC Fundraising Professional Development Program Dashboard 134
Figure H1: Program Theory-Enhance Fundraising Effectiveness for California Community
College Foundations 197
xiv
List of Abbreviations
AACC American Association of Community Colleges
ADT Associate Degree for Transfer
AGBC Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges
CASE Council for Advancement and Support of Education
CBA Cost-benefit analysis
CCCCO California Community College Chancellor’s Office
CDO Chief development officer
CEA Cost-effectiveness analysis
CEMP California education master plan
CEO Chief executive officer
CSU California State University
ED Executive director
FCCC Foundation for California Community Colleges
FTE Full-time equivalent employee
FTES Full-time equivalent staff
IRFs Institutionally related foundations
KMO Knowledge, motivation, and organization
MOU Memorandum of understanding
NCCCF Network for California Community College Foundation
ROI Return on investment
TICAS The Institute for College Access and Success
UC University of California
1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Higher education philanthropy in the United States is substantial, with $59 billion in total
giving recorded in the 2022–2023 academic term, according to the Volunteer Support for
Education Survey from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (Kaplan, 2022).
However, community colleges receive less than 4% of this amount (Razo, 2022). Despite serving
over 7 million students in the United States, the largest student population and the most diverse
regarding race, gender, and socioeconomic background (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 2021; Rios-Aguilar & Deil-Amen, 2019), community colleges do not attract and obtain
charitable money at the same pace as 4-year colleges.
The objective of the community college system is to support the first 2 years of
undergraduate education, assist students with terminal vocational degrees, and provide workforce
training to any student who can benefit from these services (Liaison Committee of the State
Board of Education and the Regents of the University of California, 1960). According to NCES,
public community colleges receive less funding per student than any other higher education
institution (Fuller & Raman, 2022; NCES, 2021).
Rios-Aguilar and Deil-Amen (2019) argued that community colleges are the least wellfunded of California’s three higher education systems. Community colleges in the United States
are an undervalued resource (Fuller & Raman, 2022), and advocates for this system and scholars
have noted that the state government does not fund these campuses at the same per-pupil level as
other higher education institutions (Fuller & Raman, 2022; Razo, 2022; Rios-Aguilar & DeilAmen, 2019). Furthermore, community colleges receive approximately $8,800 less in revenue
per full-time equivalent student than a full-time equivalent student at a 4-year institution (Yuen,
2020). The delta in revenue between 4-year and 2-year institutions is $78 billion (Yuen, 2020).
2
Reyes et al. (2018) and Fuller and Raman (2022) argued that this delta sent a message that
community college students are less important than students in other institutions.
To help alleviate a portion of the systemic revenue gap, this study aimed to provide
solutions through alternative sources of funding for community colleges via increased
philanthropic support from individuals, social good foundations, businesses, and private family
foundations. This study approached the problem with a focus on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) factors (Clark & Estes, 2008) to significantly increase philanthropic
investing in community colleges. These campuses aid in sustaining U.S. competitiveness and
addressing social issues like income polarization (Fuller & Raman, 2022). According to a recent
study on the workforce by Harvard and the American Association of Community Colleges
(Fuller & Raman, 2022), community colleges are key in resolving the middle-skills gap that
hinders U.S. businesses’ growth and prosperity and putting millions of Americans on the path to
economic security. Researching effective fundraising solutions for community colleges can
create more private philanthropic support for community colleges and their 1.8 million students.
Context and Background of the Problem
This study identified and examined performance gaps for California community college
foundations (CCCFs) in their ability to attract philanthropic support for the mission of the state’s
community colleges. A primary role of a public community college CEO is to maintain a
financially stable institution while meeting the interests and needs of the college’s students,
faculty, and local and regional communities (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Bornstein, 2003;
Nelson, 2012). Although tuition fees, property tax funds, and state and federal subsidies
represent the major sources of revenue, they are frequently insufficient to support institutional
demands, including facilities and capital expansion needs, faculty professional development,
3
scholarships, and community services (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Bornstein, 2003).
Community college leaders recognize the value of philanthropy as a supplemental external
financing source due to the continued growth in demand for funding sources other than the usual
state funding, local taxes, and student tuition (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Bornstein, 2003;
Duncan & Ball, 2011). As the significance and influence of philanthropic support have
increased, the organizational structures, specifically institutionally related foundations (IRFs)
that secure and manage these funds, have developed and evolved (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs,
2003; Bornstein, 2003). The involvement of executive directors (EDs) and chief development
officers (CDOs) in this study provided insights into performance gaps for CCCFs to help
understand their challenges and offer solutions to close performance gaps.
Key stakeholders in this study are the Foundation for California Community Colleges
(FCCC) and the Network for California Community College Foundations (NCCCF). The
network includes EDs and CDOs of 66 of the state’s 103 foundations (NCCCF, 2023). The
mission of the NCCCF is to benefit, support, and enhance the mission of the California
community colleges (CCCs), the largest higher education system in the nation with more than
1.8 million students, many of them from racially and socially diverse populations (California
Community College Chancellor’s Office [CCCCO], 2022; NCES, 2022). The NCCCF aligns
with the CCCCO and the Board of Governors, which allows the foundations to support students,
colleges, college foundations, and the entire system, helping to improve higher education
opportunities throughout the state (NCCCF, 2023). There are 70 community college districts in
the state, 116 community colleges, and 103 IRFs supporting these districts. This study’s focus is
on these foundations’ CDOs and EDs.
4
A statewide survey facilitated the collection of data. This study used that data to assess
the current gaps and inform potential strategies to close the foundations’ performance gaps. The
survey identified top performers in the field to understand their best practices. This study utilized
the data gathered through the survey to develop a fundraising key performance index as a tool to
support the progress of the CCCF statewide.
Purpose of the Study
Four-year universities have acknowledged philanthropy as an essential factor in building
institutional resources, including endowments for department chairs, new programs, new
buildings, new technology, access to overseas programs, and global exposure, made possible by
philanthropic contributions to 4-year universities. The additional financial support yielded from
enhanced philanthropic performance may lead to expanded services, support structures, better
facilities, career programs, and other resources for students and encourage approaches in
community colleges beyond California (Hall, 2002). In terms of CCCs, the literature reveals that
they are new to the philanthropic landscape: the CCCF is only 45 years old (Razo, 2022).
Pointedly, the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which reduced government funding to higher
education institutions, motivated colleges to launch philanthropic arms to supplement the
shortfall that the legislative changes caused (Razo, 2022).
It is unclear whether there is a correlation between the fundraising leader and staff
members’ knowledge, expertise, training, and professional experience that makes these
organizations more effective. Clark and Estes (2008) described this as knowledge. Additionally,
it is unclear whether external factors such as social capital or epistemological issues of the
organizational leaders and staff affect the expectancy-value of philanthropy in the community
colleges and how these mindsets, cultures, or leadership might aid or impede fundraising
5
efficiency. Clark and Estes referred to this concept as motivation. Finally, it is unclear how
budgetary constraints affect the funding of a community college’s charitable arm. Clark and
Estes described this as the organization. It is unclear which KMO elements may facilitate or
inhibit fundraising performance.
Given that the CCCs make up the country’s most extensive higher education system
(CCCCO, 2022; NCES, 2022), the objective of this study was to conduct a gap analysis and
examine these campuses’ philanthropic practices to provide practical solutions to close gaps in
performance using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework. This study sought to answer
the following research questions:
1. What knowledge factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
2. What motivational factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
3. What organizational factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
Within the KMO Clark and Estes framework (2008), descriptive, comparative, and
correlational analyses provide granular-level quantitative answers to the three research questions.
4. Comparative: What are the organizational resource differences between California’s
higher-performing college foundations and those with lower fundraising success?
5. Comparative: To what extent have survey responses changed from 2012 to 2023?
6. Correlational: Is there a correlation between the number of full-time fundraising
employees and community college foundations’ fundraising performance?
7. What is the expected return on investment for every dollar invested in a CCCF?
6
8. What are the costs and benefits for college foundations and their related cost-benefit
ratios?
Significance of the Study
The cultivation of philanthropic support can reduce a college’s dependency on tuition,
increase financial stability, provide funds for scholarships, build academic and student service
buildings, increase funds for new and expanded curricular programs, and, in some cases,
transform an institution (Razo, 2022; Scutari, 2019; Valbrun, 2019). As state budgets continue to
fluctuate, and as community colleges attempt to meet various academic and workforce needs
post-COVID-19 (The Institute for College Access and Success [TICAS], 2021), philanthropy
and development personnel have become essential for universities and colleges (Kozobarich,
2000).
The literature reveals that traditional sources of revenue for higher education, which
include state and federal government sources, are insufficient to support the multiple outcomes
that community colleges strive to achieve (Razo, 2022). According to Scutari (2019), the federal
government spends $1 billion annually on non-college vocational pathways, while private
support is largely absent. Consequently, many industrial and technical disciplines are
experiencing severe labor shortages. Because community colleges are open-access institutions,
the students and their needs are diverse (Rios-Aguilar & Deil-Amen, 2019). Further, because
community colleges serve a diverse population, additional sources of revenue are suitably more
important for them to meet their financial needs (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Bornstein,
2003; Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Desjardins, 2001; Duncan & Ball, 2011; Goldstein, 2003;
MacTaggart, 2009; Mayer, 2011; Nelson, 2012; Razo, 2022). While the literature is vast on the
need for expanded financial support in higher education, the focus is not on philanthropic
7
support and its effectiveness; overall, fundraising as a field of study has suffered from a lack of
theoretical perspective (Bergstrom, 2015; Lasher & Cook, 1996; Razo, 2022).
Building upon Bergstrom’s (2015) study on community college fundraising effectiveness,
this study also confirmed the continued lack of scholarly attention to this matter. In addition to
Bergstrom’s study, this literature review will discuss a more recent study by Razo (2022) on the
political framework in which CCCFs operate due to the study’s recency and relevance. This
research problem has practical implications and consequences for community college students,
as they were the most affected during the pandemic (Fuller & Raman, 2022; TICAS, 2021),
causing many to interrupt their studies. These students need support to return to college and
complete their education (TICAS, 2021).
In addition, society asks colleges to take on issues of basic needs such as housing, mental
health, and food insecurity (Goldrick-Rab et al., 2019; Goldrick-Rab et al., 2017; TICAS, 2021).
Therefore, community colleges need facilities equipped with current technology, relevant
training tools, and industry involvement to meet these demands (Fuller & Raman, 2022). As
goals, opportunities, and technologies shift, education, training, and community requirements
necessitate program development and expansion (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Bolman &
Gallos, 2011; Bornstein, 2003; Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Desjardins, 2001; Duncan & Ball, 2011;
Goldstein, 2003; MacTaggart, 2009; Trachtenberg, 2008). Pre- and post-pandemic, community
college students need financial and wrap-around support (TICAS, 2021), and external support is
a priority as the cost of education increases (Hanson, 2022; The Hope Center for College,
Community, and Justice, 2021; Ma & Matea, 2022). Professional development opportunities for
faculty and staff have also become a priority that necessitates external support from grants and
philanthropic gifts.
8
Definition of Terms
The following terms are used throughout this study. The following sections provide
definitions and explanations of these terms as they were used in this research.
CEO/chancellor/superintendent/president refers to the CEO of the community college
district. Multi-college districts refer to their CEOs as chancellors, while single-community
college districts refer to their CEOs as superintendents or presidents (American Association of
Community Colleges [AACC], 2016).
Chief development officer (CDO)/executive director (ED)/foundation CEO refers to the
executive in charge is the lead person responsible for overseeing, developing, and implementing
all fundraising plans and strategies for the community college district they serve (Heaton, 2015).
Cost refers to the cost analyses used in this study identified the costs for foundations to
raise funds using H. M. Levin’s (1983) model. The ingredients listed are based on elements
essential to running a CCCF based on budgets from high-performing foundations identified in
this study. “The cost of pursuing an intervention is what we give up by not using these resources
in some other way. … By using resources in one way, we are giving up the ability to use them in
another way, so a cost has been incurred” (H. M. Levin, 1983, p. 48).
Cost-benefit analysis can be used to evaluate possible new programs or find ways to
improve ones that already exist (U.S. Agency for International Development, 2017). “Benefitcost analyses enable us to ascertain whether a particular intervention is “worth it” by comparing
the costs in monetary terms with the value of the benefits in monetary terms” (H. M. Levin &
García, 2018, p. 4). This is accomplished by calculating the anticipated project implementation
costs and weighing the costs against the project’s long-term benefits.
9
Cost-effective refers to a program that is more cost-effective if it produces either better or
equal results for less money or if it produces higher results for the same or less money (Hartman
& Fay, 1996). “Programs with similar goals are evaluated by considering both the cost and
impact of alternatives under Cost-Benefit analysis” (H. M. Levin, 1983, p. 18). The fundamental
premise is that only programs with comparable or comparable objectives may be made and that a
standard efficacy metric be employed in their evaluation.
Cost-effectiveness for the CCCFs is calculated by using the total costs of each scenario
option and dividing it by the effectiveness measure. To compute costs to effectiveness as a ratio,
typically, CE ratio = C1/E1 where C1 = the cost of Option 1 (in $) and E1 = the effectiveness of
Option 1 (in physical units).
Cost-effectiveness research in CCCFs refers to the cost-benefit analyses used in this
study to compare three scenarios for increasing organizational capacity through staff and
operational resources: (a) increasing from one full-time equivalent (FTE) staff to three with basic
operational support; (b) increasing organizational capacity through staff and operational
resources from three to five FTE and (c) from six to 10 FTE with expanded operational,
technology and finance organizational capacity.
Discount rate refers to an annual rate of interest of (4%) to take account of the time
pattern of spending (Moore et al., 2004).
Effectiveness refers to the ability to achieve stated goals or objectives, judged in terms of
both output and impact. Measures used in this study are (a) the funds raised by college
foundations, (b) the cost of raising funds, and (c) intangible benefits. The CCCCO defined
intangible benefits as the time and efforts dedicated by auxiliary organizations board members
with affluence and influence supporting the college foundations, increased goodwill, brand and
10
reputation of the institutions, management of donor records, growing enrollment as a result of
funded programs and growth of endowments and assets.
Expenditures refer to “measures of resource flows regardless of their consequence”
(Monk, 1993, pp. 6–7).
Full-time equivalent (FTES) student refers to the number of full-time equivalent students
and higher education institutions created a formula to calculate this number (NCES, 2021). One
undergraduate FTES is equivalent to 45 undergraduate credit hours, and one graduate FTE is
equivalent to 36 graduate credit hours for institutions that use a quarter calendar system. For
institutions using a semester, trimester, 4-1-4, or other academic year calendar system, one
undergraduate FTES is equal to 30 credit hours, and one graduate FTES is equal to 24 credit
hours. According to NCES (2021), colleges count undergraduate FTES as 900 contact hours for
all calendar systems (academic year-based systems and continuous enrollment systems).
Full-time equivalent refers to the number of foundation staff members working
approximately 40 hours per week (Council for Advancement and Support of Education [CASE],
2015).
High-performing foundations have a higher fundraising-per-student-effectiveness ratio
(Kubik & Flahaven, 2018). To identify such foundations, Kubik and Flahaven (2018) calculated
the performance of these colleges by dividing the total dollars raised by the number of full-time
equivalent students and dividing the total endowment size and total assets of the foundation by
the number of full-time equivalent students. The new data analyzed through this study using the
NCCCF’s 2023 survey will adopt this measurement.
Institutional-related foundations (IRFs) are nonprofit corporations, foundations, or
similar entities organized for the benefit of one or more institutions and whose principal purpose
11
is to receive or use private donations for the benefit of the institution (Association of Governing
Boards of Universities and Colleges [AGB], 2020; CASE, 2015).
Intangible benefits are qualitative and non-financial. These benefits can include things
like enhancing the college’s reputation, protecting donor privacy and maintaining donor data,
increasing college assets and endowments, engaging with social media, and increasing
enrollment as a result of funding support. In addition, intangible benefits can include the
auxiliary board members’ time and executive staff’s in-kind services, carrying out tasks
delegated to them, and improving relationships with college constituents and other activities that
build goodwill (CCCCO, 2020, p. 28).
Opportunity cost refers to “the foregone benefits of the best alternative by using the
resources in an alternative way” (Fowler & Monk, 2001, p. 13). “They are the benefits that are
not realized through the best forgone alternative” (Picus, 1994, p. 4).
Return on investment (ROI) refers to a performance metric used to compare the
effectiveness of several distinct investments or to assess how efficient an investment is. The
calculation of ROIs is dividing the investment’s benefit (return) by its cost. The result is reported
as a percentage or ratio (Botchkarev & Andru, 2011).
Tangible benefits are measurable benefits in terms of monetary value and can comprise
the following: cash payments, unrecoverable costs, use of auxiliary services, products, or
facilities, and marketing or promotional events. In addition to financial support to the college,
student scholarships and tuition waiver programs, contributions to students, athletic, and
instructional programs (CCCCO, 2020, p. 28).
Total net asset refers to the total assets minus the liabilities held by the CCCF (CASE,
2015).
12
Organization of the Study
Chapter One presents the background, statement, and purpose of the research, including
research questions and hypotheses. It highlights the significance of the study in the community
college ecosystem, focusing on these campuses’ ability to serve a diverse population. Chapter
Two discusses the literature review, best practices, barriers, and key stakeholders in philanthropy
for community colleges. Key stakeholders include CCCF EDs and CDOs. The chapter also
discusses current strategies for solving the problem and identifies approaches to measuring the
problem. Chapter Three provides an in-depth explanation of the research questions and
hypotheses, including the research design, sample population, setting, and instrumentation. Also,
Chapter Three includes a discussion of the study’s reliability, validity, data collection process,
and ethical considerations. Chapter Four presents the findings, analyzing community college
philanthropy gaps and providing recommendations for closing them. Chapter Five concludes
with recommendations for future research to expand knowledge in the field.
Summary
Four-year universities have long recognized and embraced philanthropy’s role in
generating institutional resources, such as endowments, innovative programs, buildings,
technology, and scholarships (Drezner, 2011). Enhancing philanthropic success for CCCs can
lead to expanded services, support structures, and scholarship resources. The CCCs are new to
the philanthropic landscape compared to their 4-year university counterparts, but their history
makes this study necessary, as philanthropic giving progress is insufficient to fulfill their mission
(Razo, 2022). Utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis as the conceptual framework and
expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) as the theoretical framework, this study
aimed to provide recommendations to improve CCC fundraising.
13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
A fundamental issue that motivated community college leaders to consider philanthropy
as an alternative funding source was the unpredictability of revenue from the state, which has
presented a significant challenge to providing stable support to serve students’ needs (Glass &
Jackson, 1998; Lanning, 2008a; Razo, 2022; Ryan, 2003). This factor has resulted in these
leaders looking to increase financial resources through private philanthropy via community
college foundations. These foundations are known and identified in the literature as IRFs
(Heaton, 2015; Razo, 2022). A discussion of the history of community colleges provides context
for the historical account of the reasoning behind the establishment of these organizations and
their evolution.
This chapter provides a literature review of the role of the community college and the
history and evolution of philanthropy in higher education, beginning with universities and
transitioning to community colleges. This chapter also discusses the need that propelled
community college leaders to launch philanthropic efforts. Finally, this chapter utilizes Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework as the conceptual framework for a discussion of KMO
factors that hinder or support fundraising at community colleges. This chapter describes how
community colleges have evolved to expand in scope and services to serve their students (Razo,
2022; Rios-Aguilar & Deil-Amen, 2019). The underlying purpose is to evoke significance from
an observation by scholars regarding this segment of philanthropy for higher education: only a
few CCCFs increased philanthropic giving to levels similar to 4-year universities (Razo, 2022).
This chapter describes possible KMO factors that may contribute to this outcome.
14
History of the Community College and Its Role in the Higher Education System
It is helpful to understand the history of community colleges and their role in higher
education to gain a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the need for private
philanthropy. The development of 2-year junior colleges in the United States began in the early
20th century and is a relatively recent addition to the country’s higher education options
(CCCCO, 2022). As a response to the problems posed by the economy, national and local
officials worked to develop a workforce with higher expertise (Razo, 2022). The expansion of
public high schools served as an additional impetus to research and develop innovative
approaches to meeting the educational needs of the communities they serve (Razo, 2022).
In the early 1900s, community colleges were modest in size, with enrollment rarely
exceeding 150 students. The first public institution of higher education offering 2-year degrees
was Joliet Junior College, established in 1901 at Central High School in Joliet, Illinois (Razo,
2022). William Raney Harper, who was president of the University of Chicago at the time,
played a significant role in the preliminary stages of the nationwide junior college movement.
Harper advocated a nationwide program consisting of 2 years for students who were likely to
complete their degree, seek employment as instructors, or pursue business-related endeavors
after graduation (American Association of Community Colleges, 2016).
California Community Colleges Beginnings (Early 1900s to 1960s)
The history of CCCs dates back to between 1907 and 1920, as California passed the
Junior College Act in 1907, establishing the nation’s first publicly supported community college
system (CCCCO, 2022). The statute made it possible for high schools to establish junior colleges
that provided the first 2 years of college instruction. Fresno City College, which opened in 1910,
15
was the first community college (CCCCO, 2022). By the 1920s, there were several more
community colleges spread out across the state (CCCCO, 2022).
A significant expansion and growth phase occurred during the 1930s–1960s. During the
Great Depression, community colleges provided students with inexpensive higher education
(Razo, 2022). The number of community colleges increased substantially, and their offerings
expanded to include vocational training (Bergstrom, 2015). Following WWII, the GI Bill offered
funds for veterans to attend community colleges, further driving their expansion (Bergstrom,
2015; Razo, 2022).
California Master Plan of 1960
Under the governorship of Pat Brown, the California State Board of Education and the
University of California (UC) Regents appointed a team to develop the 1960 California Master
Plan for Higher Education (Liaison Committee of the State Board of Education and the Regents
of the University of California, 1960). The master plan established a trifecta system for higher
education that outlined roles for the UC, the California State University (CSU), and the CCCs
(Liaison Committee of the State Board of Education and the Regents of the University of
California, 1960). The plan included an implementation framework known as the Donahoe
Higher Education Act (Liaison Committee of the State Board of Education and the Regents of
the University of California, 1960). In this plan, administrators codified the mission for CCCs,
which is to serve all adults who can benefit from instruction, made possible through unrestricted
access and low fees (Brint & Karabel, 1989). Further, the state designated the UCs to select from
the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the graduating class, and the state designated the CSUs to select
from the top one-third (33.3%) of the high school graduating class (Yamada, 2010).
16
California created the community college system to provide access to any student who
could benefit from instruction (UC Office of the President, 2016). These campuses’
responsibilities were numerous and included the first 2 years of undergraduate education,
remediation, vocational courses and training, workforce development, basic skills, and lifelong
learning courses (Abrahamson, 2006). The plan aligned with California’s commitment to
equitable access for all who qualified in the interest of the public good (Yamada, 2010).
California approved the Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960, outlining a
comprehensive vision for the state’s educational system (Liaison Committee of the State Board
of Education and the Regents of the University of California, 1960). According to the plan, the
UC focuses on academic research, the CSU focuses on undergraduate education, and CCCs
focus on vocational education, transfer programs, and lifelong learning (Liaison Committee of
the State Board of Education and the Regents of the University of California, 1960). In essence,
the UC system was to recruit and admit the top-tier students, the CSU system was to enroll the
next tier of students, and the community college system was to serve any student who could
benefit from higher education (Liaison Committee of the State Board of Education and the
Regents of the University of California, 1960). This broad approach for the community colleges
led to significant growth in the following years.
Growth of Programs and Services
Community colleges extended their offerings throughout the 1970s and 1980s to address
the changing demands of students and the labor market (Razo, 2022). They began to provide a
broader choice of vocational and technical programs, as well as non-credit workforce
development courses. These campuses also play an essential role in encouraging diversity and
17
inclusion while giving broad access to education (Abrahamson, 2006; Yamada, 2010). While
community colleges worked to extend their services, state funding challenges began to emerge.
Due to variations in state financing, community colleges encountered financial
difficulties in the early 2000s. Budget cuts resulted in higher tuition fees and fewer course
offerings, limiting some students’ access to education (Yamada, 2010). Notwithstanding these
obstacles, these colleges have played a key role in employment development and increasing
efforts to improve the transfer rate to 4-year universities, supporting students’ educational goals.
The CCCs have recently concentrated on enhancing transfer pathways to 4-year colleges.
The associate degree for transfer (ADT) program simplifies the transfer procedure and ensures
admission to the CSU system for qualified students (Campaign for College Opportunity, 2021).
Moreover, colleges have made efforts to improve support services and raise completion rates for
associate degree and certificate students (California Competes, 2021). The CCC system now
comprises 116 institutions throughout the state (CCCCO, 2022). They provide a variety of
programs, such as academic transfer courses, vocational training, career development, and adult
education, making higher education accessible and affordable to the state’s residents (CCCCO,
2022)
Proposition 13 and the Launch of California Community College Foundations
Proposition 13 significantly changed the landscape for funding public education in
California. Proposition 13, the anti-property tax initiative, began a chronic underfunding of
public education (Razo, 2022). Almost 3 decades later, the 2008 recession led to more severe
budget cuts, limiting admission to UCs and CSUs and sending a large number of students to 2-
year colleges (Razo, 2022). The state implemented aggressive cost-cutting and enrollment
management to preserve as many classes as feasible in response to budget cuts and increased
18
demand from students deferred from 4-year institutions (Yamada, 2010). As the funding required
to meet students’ needs became less dependable, CCCs established nonprofit foundations to
support and advance their mission. To support themselves, campuses formed private ventures
known as auxiliaries, culminating in a public-private partnership (Yamada, 2010). These
foundations’ master agreements with their community college districts provide clarity of the
governance structure and the exchange of goods and services between the foundation and the
college district (CCCCO, 2022).
The preponderance of California’s community college districts established IRFs, whether
auxiliaries or independent. While the majority of CCCFs are affiliated with their institution,
some remain independent, supporting their institution while remaining self-sufficient and
separate (FCCC, 2012). Regardless, new changes affecting higher education may further expand
the need for private philanthropy support to these colleges. Specifically, recent evaluations of the
California master plan resulted in the state legislature allowing the CSU to award a Doctor of
Education degree in 2006 and certain community colleges to offer 4-year degrees in 2014 and
again in 2023 (CCCCO, 2022). These changes reflect a growing recognition of students’
evolving needs and the role of community colleges in providing accessible and affordable
education (CCCCO, 2022). Additionally, they highlight the potential for private philanthropy to
support these institutions as they adapt to a changing educational landscape (NCCCF, 2023). The
consideration of educational priorities has led to a closer examination of the original master plan,
with a desire to reevaluate it to bring the three systems closer together and to reconsider tuition
reduction (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018).
19
History of Higher Education Philanthropy for U.S. Universities
In 1938, Joliet Junior College in Joliet, Illinois, received the first philanthropic donation
to a community college (Joliet Junior College, 2021). The gift was a $360,000 bequest from the
estate of Dorothy and William Patterson, who were local business proprietors seeking to provide
their community with access to high-quality educational opportunities (Joliet Junior College,
2021). This donation exemplified the potential for philanthropic support to help community
colleges thrive and develop. Philanthropic contributions such as this have become an
increasingly necessary source of alternative financial support for community colleges across the
United States, providing funds for scholarships, academic programs, and capital improvements
(Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003).
Higher education philanthropy is the act of providing financial assistance to colleges and
universities, typically in the form of donations from individuals, corporations, foundations, or
other organizations (AGB, 2020; Drezner, 2011). In the world of philanthropy, contributions to
higher education institutions have been an important means of supporting academic research,
nurturing innovation, and creating opportunities for the next generation of leaders (AGB, 2020;
Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Drezner, 2011; Razo, 2022). Institutions can use this support for
a variety of purposes, including funding student scholarships, supporting research and academic
programs, constructing new facilities, and enhancing the overall character of the institution
(Drezner, 2011). Two of the earliest documented higher education philanthropic gifts
contextualize philanthropy in higher education: John Harvard’s in 1638 and Johns Hopkins’s
1870s.
John Harvard was an English minister and Puritan who resided in the Massachusetts Bay
Colony during the 17th century (Drezner, 2011). He is best known for his philanthropic donation
20
of £780 (approximately $1,500 at the time) and his library of over 400 volumes to what would
later become Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts (Curti & Nash, 1965). In 1638,
Harvard donated to support the education of Puritan ministers. In honor of their benefactor, the
ministers named their institution Harvard College (Curti & Nash, 1965). Harvard’s gift
significantly impacted the college’s early development (Drezner, 2011). The funds were used to
acquire land and construct buildings, while the library served as a resource for students and
academics (Drezner, 2011).
Johns Hopkins, an affluent entrepreneur and philanthropist, made one of the earliest and
most notable philanthropic contributions to higher education in 1876 when he donated $7 million
to establish the first research university in the United States (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.). In
the early 1870s, he initiated plans for a new form of university that would emphasize advanced
research in science, medicine, and other fields to elevate the stature of American higher
education and contribute to the global advancement of knowledge (Johns Hopkins University,
n.d.). He set aside a considerable portion of his wealth, including the proceeds from his estate,
for the establishment of the university. The university used his donation to purchase land,
construct buildings, and finance its initial operations. Founded in Baltimore, Maryland, the new
university opened in 1876 (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.). Thus, philanthropy played a central
role in funding a new model for higher education research institutions that others have emulated
in the United States and elsewhere (Johns Hopkins University, n.d.).
In the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s, philanthropic donations continue to be key in supporting
higher education institutions, allowing them to conduct research, offer educational opportunities,
and contribute to advancing knowledge and improving society. Philanthropy plays a significant
role in higher education because it provides funding for initiatives and programs that might not
21
otherwise receive adequate support from the government or other traditional sources (Bergstrom,
2015; Boggs, 2003; Drezner, 2011; Razo, 2022). In addition, it enables colleges and universities
to invest in their future and advance their missions, which can be advantageous for students,
faculty, and society overall. In recent years, higher education philanthropy has increased as more
individuals invest in education (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Drezner, 2011; Razo, 2022). The
most recent giving to higher education was a record high of $59.5 billion, according to the results
of the Voluntary Support for Education Survey conducted by CASE (Kaplan, 2022).
Higher education philanthropy is the focus of many organizations and foundations,
including the Carnegie Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Lumina
Foundation (AGB, 2020). Numerous colleges and universities have established development
offices to cultivate donor relationships and oversee fundraising efforts, such as a notable gift in
2016 from the Helen Diller Foundation of $500 million to UC San Francisco (UCSF), the largest
philanthropic contribution to higher education in California. The gift allocated $100 million to
retain and recruit faculty and $100 million to fund the Helen Diller Faculty Scholars program for
early- and mid-career scientists to support lab setup, equipment, and research. Lastly, $100
million will also create an innovation fund for future research with potentially global
consequences and $200 million for student scholarships (Goodman & Conway, 2017). It was the
greatest single donation in UCSF’s history and one of the largest ever to an American public
university (Goodman & Conway, 2017).
In terms of assets held by 4-year university foundations, CSU Northridge’s total
endowment holdings as of June 30, 2018, were $100.4 million (CSU Northridge Foundation,
2018), and the University of Southern California (2019) had a $5.7 billion endowment as of June
30, 2019. Thus, philanthropy is a significant component aiding the reputation, enrollment,
22
services, programs, and faculty attraction for 4-year universities, and it can also become a
significant source of support for community colleges (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Razo,
2022). Although the philanthropic history for community colleges is not long or robust, there
have been public announcements and recordings of recent mega gifts from philanthropists
(Whitford, 2021). These gifts are a cause for optimism among community college fundraising
practitioners and leaders (NCCCF, 2023, Whitford, 2021). Philanthropist Mackenzie Scott has
been a catalyst in this area, focusing on underserved populations of color and historically
disinvested communities, including historically Black colleges and universities and Hispanicserving institutions (Whitford, 2021).
History of Higher Education Philanthropy for Community Colleges in California
The history of higher education philanthropy for CCCs became prevalent after the
passage of Proposition 13, which limited ownership tax to 1%. Community colleges and school
districts rely primarily on state and local taxes (Razo, 2022). At the federal level, the U.S.
Department of Education oversees, manages, and distributes all federal financial aid for all
higher education students. These strands of funding provide support for community colleges, yet
the funding per pupil is less for community colleges than for any other public higher education
system in the state (Reyes et al., 2018) despite their serving the highest number of lower-income,
part-time, and older students (TICAS, 2021; Razo, 2022; Rios-Aguilar & Deil-Amen, 2019).
These converging circumstances presented a compelling need for community colleges to develop
foundations to support needs and increase their efforts to pursue philanthropic dollars. The
Community College League catalyzed its advocacy efforts to increase philanthropic support for
these campuses by encouraging college leadership, namely CEOs and boards of trustees, to
consider establishing foundations (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003).
23
As a result of these efforts, according to Razo (2022), colleges established a substantial
number of organizations between 1980 and the 1990s. Today, there are 101 foundations
registered (NCCCF, 2023). Nearly every community college has a foundation legally established
to support it (NCCCF, 2023). However, support for the sector has progressed slowly over the last
45 years, as evidenced by the small percentage of giving relative to the higher education sector
(Razo, 2022). Contributions to community colleges in 2018, 2019, and 2020 accounted for 1.5%
to less than 4% of total higher education philanthropy (Di Mento & Theis, 2019; Education
Advisory Board [EAB], 2021; Kaplan, 2020, 2022; Razo, 2022). Organizationally, few
foundations perform similarly to their 4-year counterparts; however, several recent gifts from
mega philanthropists point to an increase in awareness of community colleges’ role in reducing
economic disparities and increasing higher education opportunities (Di Mento & Theis, 2019;
Razo, 2022; Valbrun, 2019). Billionaire Mackenzie Scott provided the largest philanthropic gifts
to community colleges (Whitford, 2021). The gift supported seven community colleges across
the United States, with each receiving between $10 million and $15 million. It is important to
note, however, that Scott continued to give large philanthropic gifts (Whitford, 2021), so more
community colleges might have received larger gifts in 2021, 2022, and 2023. The Jay Pritzker
Foundation made another notable donation to support California’s community college system
over 20 years with a gift of $100 million (NCCCF, 2023; Whitford, 2021). Similar to Scott
(Whitford, 2021), the foundation also designated this gift to community colleges that serve a
substantial number of low-income students.
In 2017, Andy and Mary Matsui gave a 215-acre land gift to Hartnell College in Salinas,
California, valued at $20.5 million (Di Mento & Theis, 2019). Bakersfield philanthropist Dr.
Norman Levan donated $14 million to the Bakersfield College (BCC) Foundation in 2011 (The
24
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2011). Philanthropists Eli and Edythe Broad made a $10 million gift
to Santa Monica College in 2008 (Santa Monica College, 2017). The Herb Alpert Foundation
donated $10.1 million to establish an endowment that will provide tuition-free attendance to all
music majors at Los Angeles City College (2016). These gifts represent a positive trend in
community colleges’ receiving support from philanthropists in amounts that are customary for 4-
year universities but previously were anomalies for community colleges (Di Mento & Theis,
2019).
Fundraising Success Characteristics for Community College Foundations and Challenges
The following section examines key characteristics in college foundations that have led
the CASE to identify them as top-performing foundations. These foundations have yielded more
support in fundraising revenue per full-time equivalent student and have more assets per FTE
student than their peers (Kubik & Flahaven, 2018). These key characteristics include (a)
financial institutional support and diverse funding streams for operations, (b) strong
organizational structure, (c) college and foundation relationship accountability memorandum of
understanding, (d) experience with multiple capital and comprehensive campaigns, (e) leadership
of the ED/CEO of the foundation and chancellor/president of the college and their longevity, (f)
a large and active foundation board of directors, and (g) scholarship management (Kubik &
Flahaven, 2018).
Using the framework from Clark and Estes (2008) as a guide, this literature review
includes all but two areas of these characteristics. This study used those characteristics and
contrasts them with a quantitative analysis of CCC philanthropic efforts based on a 2012
statewide survey and a current 2023 NCCCF survey, which includes the landscape regarding
various organizational structures, fundraising strategies, relationships with college leadership,
25
staffing support, and financing for community college foundations. Clark and Estes’s gap
analysis framework provides a framework to examine the literature review, with emphasis on the
organizational resources, including its staff and leadership, and the knowledge and motivation of
its superintendent/president and foundation EDs to support the growth of philanthropic revenue
for the millions of community college students.
Leadership
The roles of the community college president/CEO and the foundation CDO or ED have
significant effects on philanthropic giving. The time a CEO spends on fundraising, the
relationships and communication between the CEO and the foundation ED/CEO, the experience
and length of time that these two individuals have together, and the foundation’s leader
membership in the executive cabinet are common characteristics of top-performing foundations
(CASE, 2015; Heaton, 2015; Kubik & Flahaven, 2018). In particular, the CEO’s time spent on
philanthropic efforts and the longevity of their tenure contributes to successful fundraising
(CASE, 2015; Kubik & Flahaven, 2018). The research states that top-performing foundations
have presidents with longer tenures at their institution, allowing them to invest more time in
building relationships with donors, earning trust, and developing a strong reputation as leaders.
The amount of time the CEO and president spent on charitable endeavors, forming alliances, and
expanding the college’s philanthropic relationships was another important factor. Heaton (2015)
and Kubik and Flahaven (2018) indicated that top-performing college CEOs dedicate over 25%
of their time to philanthropic responsibilities. According to Gearhart and Miller (2018),
community college presidents spend 30% of their time on fundraising-related activities like
donor cultivation, grant writing, and attending fundraising events.
26
This percentage, however, might vary depending on college size, scope of fundraising
operations, and fundraising goals. To contrast this with a study that included the vastly
experienced 4-year universities (Gagliardi et al., 2017), presidents from institutions of higher
education agreed that their biggest frustration (61%) was never having enough money. Similarly,
58% of surveyed presidents indicated that fundraising consumed the majority of their time
(Gagliardi et al., 2017). These activities include closing major and mega gifts, being part of
major capital campaign meetings, and attending donor meetings and special events (Heaton,
2015). Although the time community college presidents spend on fundraising varies based on
campus needs, fundraising is a key component of their leadership since it secures financial
resources for the institution (Heaton, 2015; Pisors, 2022).
Community college presidents oversee the design and implementation of fundraising
plans, cultivating connections with donors and sponsors and seeking large donations; thus, they
can spend a large amount of time on fundraising (Pisors, 2022). It is worth mentioning that while
philanthropy is an integral component of a community college’s executive administration, it is
not the only one (Heaton, 2015). According to the AACC, in a recent update to their
competencies guide for community college leaders, presidents/CEOs need to be effective at
governance, local, state, and federal policy, institutional and cultural awareness, student success,
harnessing individual leadership skills, advocacy, institutional transformation, communication,
partnerships and collaborations, and fiscal planning and resource development (Royal, 2022).
These competencies are key to the success of a community college president/CEO but,
more importantly, to the institution relying on their leadership (Royal, 2022). Specific to this
competency handbook, some of these competencies are philanthropy, including advocacy, fiscal
planning and resource development, and partnerships and collaborations. A principal factor
27
specific to California is the president/CEO’s responsibility of serving as the secretary and liaison
to a local, publicly elected governing board of trustees (Royal, 2022). In summary, one of several
core roles of the president or CEO is generating philanthropic support for their colleges
(Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Royal, 2022). As the public face of the college, the CEO or
president may devote considerable time to meeting with potential donors, attending fundraising
events, and engaging in activities geared toward building and preserving donor relationships.
These activities could entail visiting alumni, business leaders, philanthropists, and other potential
donors (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Razo, 2022).
Fundraising Experience
The relationship between a president’s and a CDO or ED’s experience level and the
amount of funds raised might vary depending on several factors. According to CASE, there is a
correlation, especially with the fundraisers’ experience. The CASE survey found that among
colleges that raised at least $1.5 million annually, 70% of the fundraisers had at least 4 years of
experience. However, while experience can aid in success, it is not the only factor (CASE, 2015;
Heaton, 2015). Additional factors are the organization’s mission, fundraising techniques,
economic conditions, and the wider philanthropic environment. A CDO’s experience is
especially important for fundraising success. The foundation EDs/CEOs oversee developing and
implementing fundraising strategies and operations, as well as maintaining donor relationships
(Bergstrom, 2015; CASE, 2015; Heaton, 2015). Experienced foundation EDs/CEOs have a
plethora of knowledge in fundraising, donor engagement, and campaign management. A
seasoned leader would have a thorough awareness of the charitable sector, including trends,
donor preferences, and effective solicitation tactics (Bergstrom, 2015; CASE, 2015; Heaton,
2015). They may have developed their skills by working in development roles for many years,
28
establishing relationships with significant donors, and managing successful fundraising
campaigns. Their knowledge and experience can lead to more efficient and targeted fundraising
activities, resulting in more dollars raised. The campus leader’s support for the foundation’s
leader is an additional factor in fundraising success (Bergstrom, 2015; CASE, 2015; Heaton,
2015).
A president’s experience can affect fundraising efforts, especially if they practice good
leadership and networking abilities. Seasoned presidents may have established ties with
important stakeholders in the philanthropic community and built a large network of potential
donors (Bergstrom, 2015; CASE, 2015; Heaton, 2015). They may also have a thorough
understanding of effective fundraising techniques, donor development, and stewardship, all of
which can have a favorable impact on fundraising results (Heaton, 2015). An experienced
president may also have a record of accomplishment, proving their ability to navigate
challenging fundraising circumstances, instill trust in potential donors, and convey the
organization’s mission and effects (Heaton, 2015). Donors are frequently more comfortable
contributing to an organization managed by an experienced president with a history of meeting
fundraising and organizational goals.
Building Strong College President and Foundation ED/CEO Partnerships
The CASE survey found a correlation between funds raised and the total number of years
that a CEO and foundation ED/CEO work together (CASE, 2015; Heaton, 2015). Specifically,
there was a correlation between the foundations raising more than half a million dollars and the
fact that the CEO and foundation EDs/CEOs had worked together for 4 years or more. The
survey suggests that enduring partnerships between these two roles are a positive factor in
fundraising (Heaton, 2015). Effective leadership, a compelling mission, good relationships with
29
contributors, strategic planning, adaptability to changing circumstances, and strong CEO and
foundation ED/CEO partnerships are all required for successful fundraising. Another key factor
is the frequency of interaction between the CEO and the foundation ED/CEO. CEOs who
reported having daily interactions with their foundation ED/CEO are raising more money
(CASE, 2015; Heaton, 2015).
Lastly, the foundation EDs/CEOs who are raising more funds are part of the campus
leader’s executive cabinet. This position allows the ED/CEO to be in the highest circle of
strategic discussions and decisions and have access to transferable knowledge that builds selfefficacy and translates into confidence when speaking to current and potential donors, alumni,
and corporate supporters (CASE, 2015; Heaton, 2015). Colleges and foundations with
experienced presidents and foundation EDs/CEOs who form lasting partnerships and have access
to executive-level knowledge and confidence may have a competitive advantage in utilizing their
expertise, but this is not the only factor determining the number of funds raised.
Board Leadership
The study and surveys revealed that large and strong boards garner the most
philanthropic support. The average board size of the top foundations in the study was 25 (CASE,
2010; CASE, 2015). A board’s size might vary depending on the institution’s size, breadth of
activities, and regional and organizational preference (CASE, 2015). In general, boards of
directors for community college foundations typically have between 14 and 29 members, with a
median of 22.
The composition of the board is particularly important, as it frequently comprises people
from varied backgrounds, such as corporate executives, community representatives, alumni,
educators, and other stakeholders (CASE, 2015). A board of directors with diverse expertise and
30
opinions can benefit the foundation’s overall success. These members have shared
responsibilities for strategic planning, financial oversight, personal giving, fundraising,
governance, donor stewardship, program assessment, community participation, legal compliance,
risk management, and collaboration with college administration (AGB, 2020). These
responsibilities add up to the foundation’s success in growing resources for the college and
students they serve and advancing the college’s mission and goals.
Strong Financial Support for Salaries and Operations
The FCCC survey reported that 89.7% of the state’s colleges and districts provided
support to the IRF for salaries. This was the largest source of support for the foundations. The
median percentage of college support for salaries was 71.8%. The second-largest source of
support for salaries was the foundation itself. Nearly 55% of all foundations responded that the
foundation was also a major source of financial support, with a median percentage of 29% of
salaries supported by this source (FCCC, 2012). Fifteen of the 19 foundations in Kubik and
Flahaven’s (2018) study on top-performing foundations received funding from their college or
district. Having a strong source of financial support for salaries and operations is a fundamental
need for college foundations that enables them to raise and manage funds for their college or
their college district (CASE, 2015). The operational support structure for CCCs is distinctly
different from the structure of the more experienced 4-year universities. Per Heaton (2015), one
community college president posited that funding IRFs’ operations takes courage, assessment of
the situation by involving experts to provide data and benchmarks, and investment in supporting
sought-after change (Heaton, 2015). That president stated that community colleges underinvest
in fundraising, marketing, communications, and alumni and presented an account of how
increasing staff from four to seven full-time and one part-time member increased annual gifts,
31
planned gifts, and connectedness with the community. All college CEOs must make strategic
decisions regarding investing in advancement and foundation efforts to champion philanthropy
and philanthropic connections for the college. The CSU is ahead of the curve in this respect, as it
takes a systemwide advancement approach and categorizes advancement operation budgets
under institutional support in its annual budget, thereby funding and institutionalizing its
advancement operations (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2023). These investments have resulted in
significant investments for the system and its students. In 2021–2022, the CSU reported total
annual gifts pledged of close to half a billion dollars (CSU, 2022).
Based on the literature review, community colleges have not made systemwide
investments in philanthropic services and currently do not have a mechanism to track annual
philanthropic gifts made to the CCC system (NCCCF, 2023). Some progress has been made
toward clarity on how a district can provide financial support from their budgets’ general funds
(CCCCO, 2020). However, the system has yet to institutionalize and fully fund foundation
operations to embrace the full capacity of philanthropy (NCCCF, 2023; Razo, 2022).
Organizational Structure: Independent Versus Auxiliary
Community college IRFs are independent public charities or auxiliary organizations set
up as a support unit of their related college institution (CASE, 2015; CCCCO, 2020; Razo,
2022). The CCCCO (2020) released a revised auxiliary organization manual that provides
guidance for CEOs and EDs on the difference between the two structures. It also provides
information on how to report commensurate returns. This report is a requirement for all auxiliary
organizations in the CCC system (CCCCO, 2020).
There are distinct differences between auxiliary organizations and independent
foundations. These factors are important to analyze as they have important legal and financial
32
implications for the IRFs. There are positives and negatives to each of these organizational
structures. According to Razo (2022), independent foundations can be more nimble and agile as
they are not subject to Title 5 and the California Education Code or the highly structured and
political governance model of the community college system (Razo, 2022). In the community
college system, an elected board of trustees governs the local system (Razo, 2022). The
independent IRFs appoint their own volunteer board of directors, which has full legal and
fiduciary responsibility for the governance and operation of the IRF. One clear disadvantage to
the independent foundations is that they cannot receive any funding or services from the college
or district or its personnel without a 100% quid pro quo agreement for compensation in return
(CCCCO, 2020). A completely independent operating entity (independent corporation) must
satisfy requirements such as paying for the use of college facilities, personnel, and services
(CCCCO, 2020). To prevent the college district from violating the gift of public funds provision
if it provided facilities, personnel, or services to a non-affiliated business without appropriate
compensation, no individual may utilize college funds without proper reimbursement to the
college (CCCCO, 2020).
The foundations that are very successful in fundraising and have received large bequests
or endowment gifts could financially self-sustain over time; however, the CASE and the NCCCF
surveys of 2012 revealed that the majority of the IRFs do not have large operating endowments
to fund themselves (CASE, 2015; FCCC, 2012). This finding may explain why over 70% of the
IRFs are community college auxiliary organizations formed under the corporation code and the
California Education Code (FCCC, 2012). It is important to note that both categories are eligible
for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.
33
Through a written master agreement that has received the CCCCO’s approval, a
community college district may create an auxiliary organization of the district in accordance with
the California Education Code and Title 5, even if the auxiliary organization has an independent
board (CCCCO, 2020). If the auxiliary organization signs the master agreement offered by the
district, it can use district personnel, facilities, and services to help it conduct activities.
According to the master agreement, there must be reimbursement for the expense of these
services. The master agreement restricts the purpose of the auxiliaries to those activities
permitted for auxiliaries under Title 5 regulations (CCCCO, 2020). Appendix A includes a chart
that contrasts the distinctions between an auxiliary organization and an independent corporation.
Accountability Agreement With Their Institutions
An important accountability practice is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between
the college/district and the IRF. According to the CASE, 73% of the IRFs have a MOU with
their college (CASE, 2015). Among the top-performing colleges, 79% had MOUs (Kubik &
Flahaven, 2018). In terms of the four accountabilities for binary relationships (bureaucratic,
legal, professional, and political) posited by Romzek and Dubnick (1987), the community
college foundations and their colleges engage in several of these accountabilities. The colleges
and the foundations have a legal agreement in place, either by an MOU or by a legal structure
that binds both organizations to each other, with the foundation typically serving as an auxiliary
organization to the college (CASE, 2015). In fewer situations, the foundations are structured as
separate, independent non-profits under the Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3), in which case the
MOU agreement helps both organizations clarify responsibilities and roles. Under this structure,
the foundations assume fundraising responsibilities, and the colleges agree to provide
organizational support, such as funding, facilities, and access to organizational systems and
34
infrastructure (CASE, 2015). Romzek and Dubnick defined these two accountability
relationships as bureaucratic accountability and legal accountability. Arguably, there is
professional accountability as well since people know of the foundations as the experts in
professional fundraising for the colleges.
Romzek and Dubnick (1987) defined professional accountability as the expertise of
highly skilled employees to be accountable for and provide appropriate solutions. The
accountability binary in this relationship relates to the emerging and most pressing needs of the
college and the professional fundraiser who has an ethical obligation to be donor-centric and
support the donor’s philanthropic goals. In most cases, there is a match between the college and
the donor, but the accountability binary could present a conflict of differing interests (Dubnick &
Frederickson, 2011). The accountability binary is a helpful lens to analyze and mitigate potential
conflicts in accountability relationships for the community colleges and their foundations.
Staffing
The staffing of IRFs for community colleges is small, with an average of five FTE staff.
According to CASE (2015), community college IRFs have demonstrated efficiency and
contributions in fundraising while leveraging volunteers and maintaining low operational costs.
The study points to the level of volunteer support provided to the colleges through board
membership. Although there is a limit to the size of the staff for large boards, with an average of
24 members, they are a significant source of expertise and talent for the foundations.
The development functions have the largest staff allocation at 1.2 FTE, followed by
support staff at 1.2 FTE and management at 1.0 FTE (CASE, 2015). In terms of staffing
responsibilities, foundations assign development staff to several areas, such as major gifts, the
annual fund, and planned giving or special events, as there are many roles to complete and
35
limited staff to accomplish the work required (CASE, 2015). The size of staff and the budgetary
support of IRFs are worthy of exploration and inquiry. The process that an ED/CEO navigates to
obtain basic support to partially operate their advancement and development division is different
from the more experienced and successful 4-year university models (Razo, 2022). As an
example, the CSU’s general fund budget includes advancement operations as part of annual
expenditures and a supporting function of the institution (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2023).
Thus, it is important to determine what prevents community colleges from following suit and
fully funding their advancement and foundation operations. The obstacles could be related to the
multiple demands and lack of resources to fulfill institutional support needs. There could also be
a need to present a financial analysis and business case for these foundation offices. The aim was
to provide a financial analysis of the ROI of these development offices to inform and improve
the current philanthropic gifts benefiting the community college system and its millions of
students.
Furthermore, the 2014 CASE survey revealed that staff were rarely assigned to a single
function (CASE, 2015). Although respondents touted staff resourcefulness and leveraging
volunteer work, the question of resources and limited staff is worthy of exploration because the
potential for funding from philanthropy requires staff to nurture, cultivate, advocate for, and
engage donors for potential growth (CASE, 2015). To be effective, an organization requires
adequate staffing and talented, trained, and experienced employees (Clark & Estes, 2008). An
analysis of the ROI to establish a sophisticated and well-resourced foundation office with fulltime development staff was part of the financial analysis of this study.
36
The Executive Director/Foundation CEO
The CASE survey also revealed that respondents recognized the foundation EDs/CEOs
for their multiple areas of responsibilities, including corporate fundraising, major gifts, planned
giving, annual giving, foundation grants, alumni relations, government relations,
communications, marketing, public grants, public relations, and capital campaigns (CASE,
2015). In addition, 30% of the EDs/CEOs are also responsible for the finances of the
organization (CASE, 2015). Relative to the significant role that the ED/CEO plays in the
organization, 66% of them were part of the executive cabinet of the college/district (CASE,
2015). For the top-performing foundation study, this percentage was higher, with 89% of the
ED/CEO serving on the college/district executive cabinet (Kubik & Flahaven, 2018).
Furthermore, 79% of the foundations’ CEOs/EDs reported to the chancellor/president of the
institution.
Conceptual Framework
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis, identify and evaluate the
philanthropic success of California’s community colleges, and offer potential solutions to close
performance gaps. Philanthropic contributions to 4-year universities have enabled endowments
for department chairs, innovative programs, new buildings, modern technology, access to
overseas programs, and global exposure. Philanthropic performance improvement across the
CCC system could benefit nearly 2 million students annually, and it may also inspire similar
initiatives in other community colleges across the United States that serve an additional 8 million
students. Even though there is literature pertaining to this issue and there are high-performing
community colleges with strong operating models that resemble those of 4-year universities,
37
there is a lack of data and research that helps determine the KMO factors that support or hinder
CCCF success.
The conceptual framework for this study is Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis
framework, and expectancy-value theory (EVT) by Eccles and Wigfield (2020) provides a
helpful framework for examining motivational factors. According to Clark and Estes (2008), it is
necessary to evaluate the existence and alignment of all three factors in the KMO framework as
they work in tandem to provide optimal support for organizational performance. The three
critical factors analyzed in the gap analysis are people’s knowledge and skills, their motivation to
achieve a certain goal, and organizational roadblocks and barriers such as inadequate work
equipment or lack of procedural guidelines and documentation (Clark & Estes, 2008). These
three factors provide insight into human motivation, organizational culture and procedural, and
knowledge and skills gaps in the organization. For each component, Clark and Estes (2008)
proposed solutions to close organizational gaps according to the gap analysis findings.
In terms of motivation, Clark and Estes (2008) posited that motivation is a key aspect of
performance as self-efficacy and expectancy-value motivational components, as well as the
conceptual, procedural, and help-seeking knowledge aspects, determine motivational reasons for
achieving performance goals, such as in the case of foundations who are working to grow
philanthropic support for community colleges in California (Clark & Estes, 2008). Furthermore,
the EVT posits that revealing the expected value of the goal, the interest, and previous successful
experiences may increase the self-efficacy, self-determination, and expectation of success for
CCCF EDs/CEOs and their college CEOs (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Figure 1 explains the
KMO conceptual framework for this study and Figure 2 is an illustration of the EVT framework.
38
Figure
1
Gap Analytical Framework
39
Figure 2
Expectancy-Value Theory of Motivation Theoretical Framework
Summary
In summary, the community college’s role in workforce development, educational
attainment, and economic mobility for close to 2 million students in California necessitates a
strong IRF system to expand resource development (Bergstrom, 2015; Boggs, 2003; Fuller &
Raman, 2022; Razo, 2022). Thus, IRFs could play an increasingly important role in securing
human (volunteer) and financial resources to aid the mission of the CCC system (Bergstrom,
2015; Razo, 2022). Key areas to address in the study are KMO factors that affect these complex
structures of the community college system. At the fundamental level, the low levels of staffing
40
for the IRFs could be a result of key organization gaps such as state funding structures or a lack
of expectancy among the college CEOs (Razo, 2022). This study analyzed factors that contribute
to fundraising success for CCCFs and presented a financial analysis of the ROI of a sophisticated
development department with adequate staff in the areas of major gifts, planned and endowed
gifts, annual gifts, and corporate and foundation grants and gifts.
41
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter reintroduces the purpose of this study and the research questions it
addressed. This chapter also includes an explanation of the study’s methodology and research
setting. I identified and discussed my positionality as the researcher as well as strategies to
address researcher bias as well as the study’s validity and reliability. Additionally, this chapter
discusses ethics issues related to the research. Lastly, there is a brief discussion of the limitations
and delimitations of the study.
This study’s objective was to conduct a gap analysis of CCCF fundraising success and
propose potential solutions for closing performance gaps. The community college system needs
additional funding to support the diverse student populations it serves (Razo, 2022; Reyes et al.,
2018; Yuen, 2020). Systemwide improvement of philanthropic support for the CCC system will
enhance services, programs, and basic needs support to benefit close to 2 million students and
inspire similar initiatives across the United States, which could benefit millions of students.
Research Questions
There is a lack of current data and research to determine whether there are key factors of
fundraising leaders’ and staff’s knowledge, expertise, training, and professional experience that
make these organizations more successful in raising funds for the colleges they serve. It is
unknown whether social capital or epistemological issues of organizational leaders and staff
influence the expected value of philanthropic success in community colleges, nor how these
perspectives, cultures, or leadership may facilitate or impede fundraising success. Also uncertain
is the effect of budgetary constraints on community college foundation funding. Research is
unclear as to which organizational, knowledge, or motivational factors can either increase or
decrease fundraising performance. Thus, this study addressed the following research questions:
42
1. What knowledge factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
2. What motivational factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
3. What organizational factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
Within the KMO framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), descriptive, comparative, and
correlational analyses provide granular-level quantitative answers to the three research questions.
4. Comparative: What are the organizational resource differences between California’s
higher-performing college foundations and those with lower fundraising success?
5. Comparative: To what extent have survey responses changed from 2012 to 2023?
6. Correlational: Is there a correlation between the number of full-time fundraising
employees and community college foundations’ fundraising performance?
7. What is the expected return on investment for every dollar invested in a CCCF?
8. What are the costs and benefits for college foundations and their related cost-benefit
ratios?
Overview of Design
This mixed-methods study adopted a statewide survey developed and issued by the
NCCCF in late February 2023. This instrument is the most recent systemwide survey issued for
CCCFs since 2012 (NCCCF, 2023). It consists of 24 closed-ended questions and two open-ended
questions. It includes financial data derived from the organization’s Internal Revenue Service
Form 990 and fundraising success data for 3 years (2019–2020, 2020–2021, and 2021–2022).
43
The cognitive and time burden for completing the survey is high. Considering the data
available through the literature reveals that many of these foundations operate with only five
staff members on average (CASE, 2015), asking them to submit two comprehensive surveys
would have been unnecessarily taxing and duplicative. The survey requires knowledge,
expertise, and access to financial statements, audits, and IRS 990 tax forms. The NCCCF sent its
2023 survey to all registered CCCFs via email in late February 2023. I also analyzed secondary
data sources that provided previous baseline data to comprehensively explore the KMO factors
that contribute to fundraising success for CCCs. Table 1 outlines each method.
Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions
Foundation for
California
Community
Colleges survey
2012
Network for
California
Community College
Foundations survey
2023
Interviews
What knowledge factors hinder or
support philanthropic success in
California’s community colleges?
X
What motivational factors hinder or
support philanthropic success in
California’s community colleges?
X
What organizational factors hinder or
support philanthropic success in
California’s community colleges?
X X X
44
Research Setting
This study used mixed methods, adopting a statewide survey by the NCCCF as well as
document analysis. I collected data through an online survey instrument. Participants submitted
the survey responses directly to the CCCF staff in Sacramento, California. Password-protected
file-sharing software provided dual protection of the raw data.
The Researcher
I have a complex and valuable set of lived experiences that contribute to my
intersectionality and positionality. Villaverde’s (2008) definition of positionality is “how one is
situated through the intersection of power and the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality,
ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors” (p. 10). I am a Latinx woman, once a
teenage mother. I am also a former youth gang member and a community college graduate. I am
one of the millions of students of color who have benefited from the community college system
as a stepping stone to higher education and a professional career. Additionally, I have 24 years of
professional experience in philanthropy and education, specifically in human services and higher
education. My positionality shapes my understanding and knowledge about this problem. That
said, I checked my biases as a researcher by employing transparency about my positionality and
reflexivity. Reflexivity is “an activity in which a researcher identifies, examines, and owns their
backgrounds, perspectives, experiences, and biases to strengthen research quality” (Secules et al.,
2021, p. 21). This enabled my work to be objective and helpful to the community college system
and its philanthropic arms.
Data Sources
Access to the raw data submitted by the 2023 NCCCF survey respondents enabled this
study to organize and analyze the quantitative data to further the knowledge found through the
45
NCCCF 2023 survey data. Specifically, this study applied the KMO lens to gauge the factors
contributing to or hindering CCCF fundraising success. I analyzed two additional data sources,
the 2014 CASE white paper on community college foundations and the 2012 FCCC survey,
using document analysis for their historical perspective and benchmark data.
Method 1: Document Analysis
The first method was a document analysis of the 2012 survey for CCCFs, which is the
largest survey conducted to date by the NCCCF. All but four, or 95%, of all foundations in
existence at the time of the survey provided data, making this survey a reliable source of
secondary data that can provide historical benchmarks for CCCFs. This survey provided
comparative, historical, and trend analysis data for this study.
Participants
The participants for this survey were all EDs of CCCFs (FCCC, 2012).
Instrumentation
All CCCF EDs received the online survey. The FCCC developed the survey at the
request of the board of governors of the CCC System (FCCC, 2012).
Data Collection Procedures
The FCCC collected survey responses online and used phone calls to conduct interviews
to increase the response rate. Ninety-five percent of the foundations responded to the 2012
FCCC survey (FCCC, 2012).
Data Analysis
I used quantitative data related to this study’s research questions as historical and, where
relevant, comparative data for the 2023 NCCCF’s survey adopted for this study.
46
Method 2: Survey
The second method for the study was to utilize an online survey instrument distributed to
the entire population of registered community college foundations in California in 2023. The
NCCCF 2023 survey is comprehensive; it includes 24 quantitative questions and two qualitative
questions (NCCCF, 2023).
Participants
The target population for this survey was EDs or CEOs of CCCFs. The titles of the target
population are commonly foundation CEOs, EDs, CDOs, or vice presidents of advancement. The
NCCCF selected the target population due to their close access, management, experience, and
knowledge of organizational challenges and successes. The foundation CEO/EDs also
communicate directly with the college district’s most senior executive. They provide an
important lens regarding the relationship between the foundation arms of these colleges and the
colleges themselves. In addition, the CEO/ED directly connects to the foundation’s governing
board president and governing board of directors, allowing them to have insights into the
foundation’s governance.
Instrumentation
The NCCCF developed and issued the statewide survey used in this study in February
2023. The survey includes 26 questions designed to capture current baseline fundraising data for
foundations of community colleges in California (NCCCF, 2023). This statewide survey has 24
quantitative data questions and two qualitative open-ended questions. The survey instrument
gathers organizational, human resource, operations, financial, and fundraising data for the
following fiscal years: 2019–2020, 2020–2021, and 2021–2022. The survey requires expert
knowledge of the organization’s operations, resources, functionality, and leadership. In addition,
47
the survey requires respondents to access financial audits, financial statements, and 990 tax
forms to enhance the consistency and reliability of the data sources. The intent of the survey was
to capture a random probability sample, which is why the NCCCF sent it by email to all 101
foundations in the state to improve reliability and external validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The NCCCF estimated that participants could complete the survey in
approximately 3–4 uninterrupted hours (NCCCF, 2023). Appendix B presents the full survey.
Data Collection Procedures
The primary vehicle for the 2023 NCCCF survey recruitment was the NCCCF and its
members. The NCCCF sent out emails to the network via a listserv (Appendix C). The NCCCF
sent out follow-up reminders to the foundation CEOs/EDs to request support to complete the
follow-up survey. This survey aimed to collect quantitative data on at least 60% of the
foundations registered in the state to improve validity and reliability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The appendix includes the request to access the raw data for the
NCCCF 2023 survey, as well as the approval letter from the President of the Network Board.
Data Analysis
This study utilized descriptive and inferential statistical analysis to analyze and
summarize the raw data set for all 2023 NCCCF survey respondents. Descriptive statistics
summarize the characteristics of the data set using three categories: central tendency measures,
variability measures, and frequency distribution measures. Central tendency measures the data’s
center, variability measures its dispersion, and frequency distribution measures the frequency of
data occurrence. The basis for the current state of the CCCF’s fundraising data was the current
statewide survey instrument developed and launched by the NCCCF in the Spring of 2023.
48
This study looked to identify correlational variables that support fundraising success in
CCCs. The study used Spearman’s rank order correlation, which measures the strength and
direction of monotonic association between two variables (Sigma Plus Statistiek, 2023).
Method 3: Interviews
The third source of data was semi-structured interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) with
EDs/CEOs of CCCFs. Comprehensive interview research protocols ensure a rigorous and
insightful investigation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The interviews provided qualitative data
that the quantitative analysis of the 2023 NCCCF survey could not provide. The mixed-methods
approach allowed me to gather information on knowledge and motivation factors that the
quantitative analysis did not address (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants
The interviewees were EDs/CEOs of the 10 highest-performing CCCFs. They provided
insights into best practices on goal setting, benchmarking, organizational structures, and
employee motivational strategies. Interviews support the triangulation of quantitative
information as well as strengthen the study by collecting data on KMO factors that support
success (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview Protocol
The interview instrument included 20 open-ended questions that aligned with the
research objectives and encouraged participants to share relevant information. I designed and
piloted the instrument in the spring of 2023 and refined the instrument based on the test
interviews and peer input (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The pilot test served as a training
opportunity to enhance the protocol, probing techniques, and ethical considerations (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Participants acknowledged informed consent and received a disclosure of
49
ethical guidelines. The consent included a request for permission to record and transcribe the
interviews to increase reliability and accuracy. The interview aimed to elicit in-depth responses
from the key stakeholders: the EDs/CEOs of these foundations (Patton, 2005). Appendix D
presents the interview protocol.
Data Collection Procedures
I conducted all interviews for this study through video conferencing. To ensure
confidentiality and ethical considerations, participants acknowledged informed consent prior to
beginning the interviews, and I anonymized data during the analysis phase (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I audio-recorded and transcribed each interview verbatim to ensure accuracy and fidelity
in capturing participants’ perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Analysis
Thematic analysis and a constant comparative approach were employed to identify
common themes, gaps, and opportunities related to KMO factors hindering or supporting
philanthropic success for CCCs (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
insights garnered from this research aid in bridging the gap between knowledge, motivation, and
organization to enhance philanthropic engagement and support in the community college system.
Validity and Reliability
This study used random or probability sampling to provide an equal opportunity for the
foundations to be in the same group (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The total number of formally
established CCCFs as of March 2023 was 101. The number of these foundations that are
members of the NCCCF is 66. The target for the total number of respondents is above 60% of all
the foundations in the state to increase the study’s external validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In terms of sampling methods, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) posited
50
that random sampling methods ensure the sample is representative of the population; therefore,
this study includes all of the foundations registered in the state in February 2023 (NCCCF,
2023).
Ethics
I kept the names of the surveyed institutions anonymous by using pseudonyms and
excluding all identifiable data from the study results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participation in
the survey and interviews was voluntary, and the data published in this study do not disclose any
participant’s or organization’s names to respect the confidentiality of all involved (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The NCCCF provided written authorization to access the raw data and report the
analysis without the organizations’ names. I securely stored data with Dropbox and Duo
authentication and disclosed all these measures in writing to the NCCCF and the interviewed
experts. Appendix E includes a letter providing ethical considerations, anonymity protocols, and
a request for permission to utilize the study’s raw data. Similarly, Appendix F includes a positive
response letter granting the request to utilize the raw data.
51
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This study sought to find best practices for CCCFs. Using Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis framework, this study focuses on finding the KMO factors contributing to fundraising
success at CCCFs. This study also aimed to use key success factors identified by a 2012 CCC
survey to determine if these factors correlate with fundraising success for CCCs.
The following research questions guided this study to determine the effectiveness of their
fundraising efforts, the existence of potentially useful components, and their capacity to predict
fundraising success:
1. What knowledge factors support philanthropic success at California’s community
colleges? (RQ1, K)
2. What motivational factors support philanthropic success at California’s community
colleges? (RQ2, M)
3. What organizational factors support philanthropic success at California’s community
colleges? (RQ3, O)
Within the KMO framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), descriptive, comparative, and correlational
analyses will provide granular-level quantitative answers to the three research questions.
4. Comparative: What are the organizational resource differences between California’s
higher-performing college foundations and those with lower fundraising success?
5. Comparative: To what extent have survey responses changed from 2012 to 2023?
6. Correlational: Is there a correlation between the number of full-time fundraising
employees and community college foundations’ fundraising performance?
7. What is the expected ROI for every dollar invested in a CCCF?
52
8. What are the costs and benefits for college foundations and their related cost-benefit
ratios?
Mixed-Methods Study
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach by adopting a statewide survey launched
by the NCCCF in the Spring of 2023 to address the research questions. The qualitative portion of
this study includes in-depth interviews with the 10 best-performing foundations based on the
survey respondent results to triangulate and take deeper dives into the quantitative analysis
regarding KMO factors. As posited by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), a mixed-methods approach
helps increase the validity and reliability of information by triangulating the quantitative data
with the qualitative data. It is important to note that the study controls for the size of the
institution using the college’s full-time equivalent (FTE) student as the denominator of several
factors, including total dollars contributed, total assets, and the total size of the endowment of the
IRF.
I collected the quantitative data through a statewide online survey, the NCCCF 2023
survey, sent by email to all CEOs and CDOs of California public community colleges.
Foundation EDs/CEOs received a request to complete an online survey in the Spring of 2023.
Respondents had the option to skip questions, and not all respondents answered all questions.
This study adapted parts of the survey and utilized questions that aligned closely with the
research questions. The NCCCF staff followed up with three email reminders to ask participants
to complete the survey.
The first question addresses the name and legal formation of the IRF to understand if it is
an auxiliary corporation under the governance of the board of trustees of the college or an
independent foundation governed by its independent board of directors. The second section of
53
the questions collects information about organizational capacity regarding the number of staff in
FTE and the type of roles and functions the staff have. There is a specific question regarding the
number of fundraising staff members of the IRF. In addition, the survey asks about the longevity
of the current foundation ED/CEO and who is in their direct reporting. The survey also asks how
long the current community college president/superintendent has been in their role. The third
section of the survey contains questions regarding the financial health and fundraising
performance of the IRF. The main question includes how much the IRF has raised in the last
three fiscal years. To gather reliable and valid data, the survey provides directions on where to
find this information in the organizations’ IRS Form 990. In addition, the survey asks if the IRF
has an endowment and, if so, its amount. Lastly, this section includes questions about the
organization’s total assets. The final section includes a question about formal accountability
relationships through an MOU between the college and the IRF. This section concludes with an
open-ended question about the foundations’ most significant challenges in accomplishing
fundraising work and what resources the NCCCF can provide to support CCCFs.
The survey is comprehensive and covers an extensive amount of quantitative data that
contributes significantly to the insights and findings of this study, specifically related to Research
Question 3 on the organizational factors that contribute to fundraising success. The survey
captures 50% of the universe of respondents; thus, it is a meaningful sample of the population
and adds validity and reliability to the qualitative that was also necessary to understand the first
two research questions: What are the knowledge and motivational factors that contribute to
fundraising success for CCCs?
The quantitative analysis used NCCCF 2023 survey respondents. The survey includes 26
questions ranging from organizational, legal structure, establishment date, operational structure
54
and functions of staff, staff size, staff longevity, size of assets, and total endowment size as of the
2021–2022 fiscal year. The survey also asked foundations to submit a copy of their MOU (if
applicable) between the college and the foundation.
It was important for NCCCF to obtain a current CCCF landscape. The most recent survey
conducted at scale for the entire CCCF system occurred in 2012. The board of the NCCCF aimed
to obtain information on the CCCF landscape to understand the current challenges these IRFs
face. The NCCCF also aimed to design a profile of a successful foundation to provide datainformed support for its members (NCCCF, 2023). Fifty foundations responded to the survey out
of the 101 in the state. The survey included 23 quantitative and three open-ended questions. I
received permission and access to utilize the survey’s raw data to inform best practices and offer
solutions to close gaps in CCC fundraising success. For the organization of this study, I
categorized the questions using Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO conceptual framework.
The first section of the survey, Questions 1 through 4, covers elements of organization
longevity, legal structure, the title of the foundation ED/CEO, and the reporting structure for the
foundation ED/CEO. These questions and their responses provide insights into the foundation
leader’s declarative and conceptual knowledge and experience (K) and the organizational
settings and structures (O). Questions 5 through 10 address organizational resources (O)
elements, precisely staffing size, the breakdown of staff functions, and the use of outside
consultants to support organizational needs. This set of questions informs the current state of
organizational (O) human resources in performing the philanthropic work of the CCC
foundations. Questions 11 through 15 cover organizational gross and net assets, the size of the
endowment (if applicable), endowment payout policy, and factors that construct the endowment
55
payout for the IRF. These questions inform the current state of organizational assets and
resources to achieve the mission of the CCC foundations (O).
Question 15 asked the IRF to provide their fundraising totals for the past three fiscal
years: 2019–2020, 2020–2021, and 2021–2022. The survey instrument asked for information
from the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 to increase the validity of the survey information.
Thirty-eight foundations provided data for the three fiscal years, providing their complete fiscal
data for 3 years (n = 38).
For the quantitative analysis of this study, I used the data from the meaningful sample
(n = 50) foundations. This survey section provided significant insights into the current landscape
of the CCCF organizational fundraising performance (O) findings of the KMO gap analysis
study. Question 16 asked if the foundation has earned income streams for fiscal years 2019–
2020, 2020–2021, and 2021–2022. Question 17 asked about investment income results for fiscal
years 2019–2020, 2020–2021, 2021–2022. Question 18 gathered data on total funding
distributions during the most recently completed fiscal year, specifically the number of
scholarships distributed, scholarship recipients, and other college needs supported by the IRF,
including capital projects, bond measure campaigns, and other needs. This question provided
insights into the current benefits provided to students and college institutions through the work of
the IRS. Thus, this question was insightful to the current strengths of the organization and the
expectancy and value of the fundraising task, which is an element of motivation (Clark & Estes,
2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002).
Question 19 collected data on operational expenses in the most recent fiscal year. This
study aimed to increase the validity and reliability of these data. The survey requested consistent
information derived from the functional expense report in the Internal Revenue Service Form
56
990. Question 20 included information about financial support from the community college
institution to the IRFs. Specifically, the data pertained to the percentage of the operating
expenses of the IRFs that the college institution pays. This information provides insight into the
current state of investment of financial resources from the colleges and IRF organizations (O) to
the philanthropic mission and goals. In addition, it provided data for an ROI and benefit-cost
analysis of supporting the CCCFs.
The final set of questions, 21 through 24, asked about organizational strategic planning
(O), what resources would be helpful and could be applicable from the NCCCF (K, M, O), the
three biggest challenges (KMO), whether they assess fees (O), whether they have a minimum
gift policy for board members (O), and whether there is a MOU between the college and the
foundation (O). In the concluding section of the survey, Questions 22 and 23 were open-ended
and allowed each respondent to identify the primary factors to which they would attribute their
fundraising program’s success or failure.
This study must adequately answer two research questions that address knowledge (K)
and motivation (M). The study necessitated in-depth interviews to collect qualitative data from
experts in the field of philanthropy at CCCs. As posited by Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
qualitative data can increase the reliability and validity of the study. The interview questions in
the instrument used for the 10 highest-performing foundations include questions that the
quantitative work described in this section could not address. The first set of questions addresses
the respondents’ foundational declarative and procedural (K) knowledge, such as regarding their
roles. The questions also ask about the mission of the organization, how the organization sets its
goals and fundraising priorities and its most important accomplishments. The second set of
57
questions asks about the foundation’s strategies to cultivate and steward corporate, individual,
and alumni donors.
The following set of questions addresses how the leaders of these foundations perceive
professional development, education, and experiences that have contributed to their fundraising
success. It also includes questions about motivational factors that help the foundation ED/CEO
succeed in their field, what types of support they need to continue to fulfill their roles, and what
factors contribute to their foundation’s success. The final question was an open-ended question
that asked the foundation experts what could help CCCFs achieve their mission of raising funds
for CCCs. As noted, each of these questions informs one or more of Clark and Estes’s (2008)
three factors for this study: knowledge (K), motivation (M), or organizational factors (O).
Description of the Sample for the Quantitative Data
The EDs or CEOs of foundations affiliated with CCCs are the individuals who are the
focus of this survey. Generally, CEO, ED, and CDO are the titles society uses to refer to the
population in the study. Because of their close access, management, experience, and knowledge
of organizational challenges and successes, the population selected as the main stakeholder was
an essential factor. Furthermore, the CEOs and EDs of the IRFs engage in direct communication
with the senior executives of the college district, namely vice presidents, vice-chancellors, deans,
directors, and the superintendent/president/chancellor of the institutions. The study examined the
relationship between the foundations of these colleges and the colleges themselves through this
lens, which is an essential one. In addition, the CEO/ED of each IRF directly connects to the
foundation’s governing board, president, and board of directors, allowing them to gain insights
into its governance.
58
This research sampled all foundations to ensure that each foundation had an equal
opportunity for inclusion in the sample group. These are sound practices that improve reliability
and validity, according to Lincoln and Guba (1985). As of March 2024, there were 101 legally
established foundations working to support community colleges. Sixty-six of these foundations
are members of the NCCCF. Therefore, a key stakeholder and source of information for this
study is the NCCCF, as of this study’s date, the most prominent professional organization in the
philanthropic professional field for public community colleges in California. The NCCCF
recruited participants from 100% of the foundations registered in the state at the time of the
survey in February 2023 (NCCCF, 2023). The survey aimed to get a purposeful sample of the
population, following research validity as posited by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Merriam and
Tisdell (2016); the total number of respondents is 50, equivalent to 49% of all foundations in the
state.
Table 2 illustrates the list of the colleges participating in the survey and their total funds
raised by full-time student equivalent. Fifty IRFs out of 101 foundation EDs/CEOs (48.8%)
responded to the survey; however, only 38 provided complete financial data. The region in
California with the most significant respondents was the South, with 19 (30%) respondents. The
region with the least number of EDs responding was the Northeast, with seven (11%)
respondents.
59
Table 2
College Rankings Based on Fundraising per Student
Ranking
Foundation
name
Fundraising per
student/ratio
Average annual
fundraising
Number of full-time
students
1 College $1,385 $8,865,425 6401
2 College $897 $11,296,370 12595
3 College $870 $7,897,988 9079
4 College $691 $4,274,663 6186
5 College $682 $9,171,987 13441
6 College $652 $1,281,542 1967
7 College $578 $8,079,500 13975
8 College $555 $8,030,047 14479
9 College $546 $994,667 1820
10 College $439 $6,051,900 13799
11 College $335 $1,768,409 5285
12 College $331 $1,212,499 3662
13 College $326 $397,389 1217
14 College $319 $6,000,000 18811
15 College $306 $3,002,829 9823
16 College $279 $1,195,481 4289
17 College $275 $3,370,599 12238
18 College $263 $4,986,016 18977
19 College $200 $2,805,226 14017
20 College $188 $1,500,000 7974
21 College $184 $1,728,885 9386
22 College $124 $1,778,732 14381
23 College $116 $2,284,406 19641
24 College $100 $466,944 4655
25 College $98 $848,489 8646
26 College $93 $767,755 8240
27 College $86 $352,095 4073
28 College $82 $836,581 10225
29 College $77 $535,278 6930
30 College $72 $1,304,497 18139
31 College $64 $645,376 10036
32 College $54 $306,810 5635
33 College $40 $194,413 4810
34 College $29 $405,411 13894
35 College $20 $169,141 8345
36 College . $635,942 .
37 College . $2,059,921 .
38 College . $3,676,952 .
Total n 38 35 38 35
60
Description of the Population for the Qualitative Data
The interview respondents are the current EDs of the IRFs selected through quantitative
data analysis, which identified the top-performing foundations from the NCCCF (2023) survey. I
measured performance using the total average raised in the last 3 fiscal years and the FTEs as the
denominator to control the colleges’ size. I adopted this methodology from a study conducted by
Kubik and Flahaven (2018) to identify top-performing community college foundations in the
country. I contacted interview candidates by email and invited them to participate in the study.
Nine out of 10 foundation EDs responded to the invitation. I did not interview the 10th-ranking
foundation. The interviews served two purposes: to triangulate the quantitative data and to gain
an understanding of KMO best practices utilized at these top-performing foundations through the
qualitative data collection process to inform the college foundation practitioners in the state.
The mean tenure of the EDs for the top-performing foundation is 8.6 years (M = 8.6)
compared to 5.5 (M = 5.5) for the remaining institutions. Six of the respondents were women,
and three were men. In addition to their tenure at their community college IRF, seven out of nine
EDs have extensive experience in the nonprofit philanthropic sector, ranging from 40 years of
experience to 8 years of experience in philanthropy work. Three out of the top-performing
organizations are independent, and seven are auxiliary. Six out of 10 foundations have strategic
goals and or a strategic plan, and six out of nine EDs are part of the executive cabinet. One is in
the process of obtaining a seat at the cabinet, and a second foundation attends regularly as a
guest. Six out of 10 foundation EDs report to the superintendent/president, two report to both the
foundation board and the superintendent/president, and two report to the foundation board of
directors only.
61
Interviews With Foundation Executive Directors: Qualitative Data
The qualitative data collection utilized a semi-structured interview format, with each
interview lasting 40–60 minutes. The interview included 21 open-ended questions to understand
concepts, past experiences, and insights on CCCF fundraising for these top-performing
foundations. The protocol encouraged respondents to share as much or as little as they felt
comfortable doing. The questions aimed to triangulate and take deeper dives into the quantitative
data provided by the NCCCF survey (2023), specifically, to learn more about the thoughts and
experiences of the foundation EDs/CEOs about KMO factors that contribute to effective
fundraising for CCCFs. The first four questions gathered data on the interviewees’ declarative
knowledge (K). Questions 5–8 collected data on the procedural knowledge of the
EDs/foundation CEOs and shared the steps the foundation took to evaluate its success. Questions
9 through 12 collected data on metacognitive knowledge (K) factors, including reflection on
strengths of skills and knowledge and possible improvement points. Questions 13–15 collected
insights into the motivational factors (M) that support the foundation EDs/CEOs. Questions 16
and 17 collect data on organizational cultural settings (O) that support fundraising success.
Questions 18–20 provided insights into the organizational cultural models (O). The last question
was open-ended and asked the interviewees to consider other factors that would support the
foundation’s fundraising success. The interview instrument allowed the participants to provide
their experiences and insights into the fundraising success factors and challenges of CCCFs.
Summary of Participant Interviews on Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and
Organizational Factors
The qualitative analysis focused on identifying best practices and the most prevalent
challenges CCCFs faced and aimed to gather deeper insights and further triangulation on the
62
survey data. For the interviews, I invited the 10 best-performing foundations to provide insights
into the KMO factors that contribute to or hinder their fundraising success. The respondents’
profiles are presented herein with pseudonyms to protect their identity. Each paragraph discusses
their experience in the field, tenure at their current role and previous experience, knowledge and
skills, and their motivational self-regulation strategies to maintain high motivational levels that
support their high performance. Lastly, I asked the respondents about organizational factors that
could support community college foundations in achieving their mission. The study used priori
and posteriori thematic coding to find and extract the themes of the respondent’s most
prominently mentioned factors. The following section provides respondent profiles based on the
deep dive interviews conducted over 40–60 minutes.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 1
Clark and Estes (2008) posited that the three tenets of organizational effectiveness require
integration to achieve the intended success. The following section provides a brief narrative of
each factor and its relevance for the interviewed organization leader. Data on specific assets and
endowment size has been generalized to protect anonymity of the foundations.
Knowledge and Motivation
Respondent 1 is a fundraising professional with 15 years of tenure in their current role
and spent 10 years in human service philanthropy, for a total of 25 years of fundraising
experience. The respondent’s college is in a rural part of California. The most-mentioned
motivational factor for this respondent was the ability to support students in achieving and
succeeding in their academic and life goals. Other motivating factors were working to support
donors to achieve their philanthropic goals and leaving a legacy to support students. The most
mentioned self-regulation strategies for this interviewee were to see, hear, and interact with
63
students at their college. The second was to speak to donors, build strong relationships with
them, and connect the philanthropist with students. The third was reflecting on the wins and
accomplishments of the past, whether it was raising funds for a $160 million bond measure,
seeing new buildings supported through capital campaigns, funding new diversity and equity
programs, or supporting life skills and leadership development programs and scholarships for
student-parents, student-athletes, and returning students. This respondent saw their foundation
grow almost tenfold from a modest endowment to significant assets. The respondent stated that
the foundation’s staff has grown from four to 11 FTE. The foundation ED/CEO spends about
30% of their time directly in fundraising, with the majority of time spent on college grants,
institutional task forces, government relations, institutional partnerships, and foundation
administrative tasks. The respondent also stated that the largest challenge for CCCs was to get
more structured support and statewide investment for CCC philanthropy.
Organizational Strengths: Strategy, Relationships, and Major Gift Development
This ED/CEO sees industry partnerships, strategic planning and alignment with the
college, community responsiveness and connections, and major gift development as key factors
in their foundation’s success. The foundation partners with the agriculture, STEM, healthcare,
and construction industries to develop innovative programs and partnerships that support
workforce development programs. Through these partnerships, this ED/CEO has led both
comprehensive and capital campaigns, resulting in new facilities and expanded programs.
Through strong community connections, the foundation and college president led a bond
campaign that raised over $160 million in facilities support for the development of new college
education centers in underserved communities.
64
The foundation’s fundraising efforts align with the most important priorities identified
through a strategic alignment process. This process enables the foundation to have a 5-year
roadmap of its fundraising efforts, thereby creating buy-in from the college’s leaders and donors
for these priorities aligned with the college’s mission, vision, and strategic direction. This
planning process has internal and external stakeholder engagement that enables inclusiveness
and direct input from community stakeholders into the college’s plans and vision. This ED/CEO
is part of the executive cabinet. According to the FCCC (2012) report and Kubik and Flahaven’s
(2018) study, membership in the executive cabinet is a strength and a best practice for
community college IRFs.
Organizational Weaknesses: Lack of MOU
Under organizational weaknesses, the ED/CEO noted that the IRF does not have a written
MOU with their college institution. The MOUs between foundations and their college institution
create an accountability relationship that the boards of each of the organizations adopt, and the
literature considers a best practice (Kubik & Flahaven, 2018). The ED/CEO is working with the
foundation’s board and the college president to codify the first MOU in the history of the
foundation. The ED/CEO believes that the MOU would create clearer deliverables and
expectations between the foundation and its college institution, and it may give greater
understanding to the policy and decision makers that govern these organizations, namely, the
board of trustees of the college and the foundation board of directors.
Organizational Opportunities: Planned Giving and Alumni Giving
The ED/CEO, through a strategic planning process, has identified planned giving as the
primary opportunity for their foundation’s growth. In addition, the college has the resources
required for alumni cultivation. The foundation has a database of approximately 70,000 alumni
65
records to work with, assuming adequate capacity of staff to cultivate these relationships.
Finally, leveraging technology to support outreach and automation of routine tasks for
foundation staff is an opportunity to improve fundraising effectiveness.
Organizational Threats: Lack of Investment From College Institution
The ED/CEO believes that foundation and advancement operations are not a vital
component of the institution, even with its success and the resources it brought to the college and
its students. The institution pays for about 20% of the overall foundation budget. The foundation
has to pay for its operations and growth, which is different from other IRFs, such as the CSU
system, where the institution pays for the operations of its supporting foundations (CSU, 2022).
This places community colleges at a disadvantage to other IRFs, hindering their ability to reach
their potential to raise more funds for community colleges (FCCC, 2012; Razo, 2022). The
interviewee shared,
I have always wondered why community college foundations, having the most
compelling social and economic mobility case for support, do not invest in philanthropic
departments as the 4-year CSU or UC do. Here, we have to go through hurdles to get
support for a position, or we have to raise the money ourselves to do it. I attended a
California planned giving conference where many of our 4-year university counterparts
attended, and I asked them about their staff and structure. Some of them have
departments of 20–30 professionals, experienced fundraisers, even attorneys doing
planned giving work. I know we could do so much more if we had a robust staff to
connect with more alumni, corporate partners, and foundations. The leaders in our
community college system can do great things at their institutions by funding and
resourcing their advancement operations adequately to raise more funds.
66
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 2
Respondent 2 has less than 5 years of tenure at the college and over 30 years of
experience in philanthropy. Their title is ED and CDO. This respondent reported that they are not
a member of the executive cabinet at the college. However, that is in the process of changing.
The interviewee’s answers provided evidence of declarative, procedural, and conceptual
knowledge, and skills (Clark & Estes, 2008). In addition, the interview yielded insights into
strategies and practices implemented to self-regulate and maintain elevated levels of motivation
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). The key findings and themes provided insights into themes that
emphasized strategic planning and alignment with the college, donor cultivation, and experiences
and best practices of a CCCF regarding fundraising, strategic planning, and donor engagement.
The following list highlights the findings as they relate to KMO (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Fundraising and donor engagement (K): The foundation employs a mix of fundraising
and donor engagement strategies, focusing on stewardship, understanding donor
interests, and building meaningful relationships rather than transactional interactions.
Alongside other programmatic support, there is a significant emphasis on
scholarships as a major achievement and fundraising area.
Scholarship program (K, M, O): Recognized for having one of the best scholarship
programs in California. The foundation awards over $5 million in scholarships
annually, with projections to exceed $7 million in the current 2023–2024 fiscal year.
Endowment size (K, M, O): The foundation boasts one of the largest endowments in
the state, currently valued at $75 million. Its assets are nearly $88 million.
Fundraising goals and achievements (K, M, O): The foundation set a goal to raise $15
million to support projects affiliated with Measure Y (a bond measure) and
67
established an annual fundraising goal of $10 million. The foundation raised $10.6
million last year, indicating an upward trajectory from the $6 million raised annually
when the EDs first joined.
Capital campaigns and projects (K, M, O): The foundation has been involved in
capital campaigns and projects, raising funds for various college needs, including
student housing, athletic facilities, and program-specific support, such as for
agriculture and culinary programs. Over the past 4 years, this included a $15 million
campaign to support projects aligned with a facilities bond measure.
Community and employer relations (K, M, O): The foundation leverages its career
education programs and long-standing community presence to engage local
employers and corporations in fundraising efforts, highlighting the college’s strength
and role in workforce development. The foundation was instrumental in providing
seed funds for the bond measure and leveraged support from the community to pass a
$410 million bond.
Organizational culture and staff development (O): The foundation values building a
positive internal culture through retreats, team activities, and professional
development opportunities. The foundation’s activities include a focus on diversity,
equity, and inclusion.
Presidential involvement in fundraising (O): The conversation highlights the evolving
role of the college’s president in fundraising activities and the potential impact of the
president’s engagement on the foundation’s success.
Strategic planning and alignment with college goals (O): The foundation aligns its
strategic planning closely with the college’s educational and infrastructure goals,
68
particularly emphasizing the need to align with the district’s new education plan to set
fundraising priorities.
Technology and operational challenges (O): The foundation faces challenges related
to technology, particularly in managing donor data and integrating various databases
to streamline operations.
Legal and bureaucratic navigation (O): The foundation navigates the complexities of
working within a public institution, dealing with bureaucracy, and adhering to public
policies and participatory governance structures.
The discussion with the ED/CDO also touched on future opportunities and areas for
improvement, such as enhancing planned giving programs. The necessary growth of the
organization requires an expansion of human capital to expand planned giving. Leveraging
technology for fundraising efforts is also an area of need and growth for the organization.
Overall, the interview underscored the interconnectedness of strategic alignment with the
college, engagement with the community and donors, and a positive internal culture in driving
the foundation’s success in fundraising and supporting the college’s mission.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 3
This ED/CEO has 25 years of experience in their college foundation and 15 in their role
as ED. Before that, they served as the development director. Their college is in urban California.
Similar to the first interviewee, they have been part of the steady growth of their foundation.
Twenty-five years ago, when they began their tenure, the foundation had $2 million in assets,
whereas today, it has over $55 million in assets and an endowment of $40 million. They award
over $1.6 million a year to student scholarships and an additional $2 million to the college for
campus programs and support for students. This ED self-regulates to maintain motivation for
69
high performance by connecting with students, going to student presentations, and reviewing
previous years’ successes. The following are the themes and strengths identified for College
Foundation 3.
This ED has a notable tenure, knowledge, and experience highlighted by the following
points:
Lead staff tenure (K): The ED has been in the position for 7 years and has 25 years of
experience with the foundation. This long tenure is an advantage, contributing to a
deep understanding of the foundation’s operations and strong relationships within the
community.
Achievements (K): Under the ED’s leadership, the foundation’s assets have grown
significantly. The endowment has reached $50 million in assets, with the endowed
funds’ corpus at $39 million. The foundation has also increased the amount of money
awarded in scholarships to students, reaching $1.6 million in 1 year and providing $1
million in support to the college.
Strengths and self-efficacy (K, M): The ED is a people person who can connect well
with donors, which is necessary for fundraising. Her long-standing presence at the
foundation has built trust and established long-term relationships with donors.
Self-reflection, self-regulation, and opportunities for growth (M): The ED
acknowledged the need for organizational growth, particularly in staffing, to leverage
more opportunities for the foundation. She desires to overcome the comfort of
maintaining the current team dynamics to pursue growth and success.
70
Motivation (M): The foundation’s work and the impact it has on students and the
community motivates the ED. Hearing student success stories and seeing the tangible
results of the foundation’s support fuels her dedication to the mission.
Perceived value of the foundation (M): On their campus, the foundation and its role in
advancement are not in a position of primary leadership or importance, unlike at 4-
year universities. This perceived lack of value and recognition of the foundation is an
area of improvement for the organization and its college.
Feedback and improvement (M): The ED values feedback from donors, board
members, and new perspectives. They use feedback as a tool for continuous
improvement and to enhance the foundation’s strategies and operations.
Professional development (O): The ED emphasized professional development,
including leadership courses and participation in industry-specific programs like
Focus Agriculture, which helps network and learn about the community. The ED’s
experience and strong motivation to support students and the community drive the
foundation’s success. Their willingness to embrace feedback and pursue continuous
improvement reflects a dynamic leadership and organizational development
approach.
Organizational barriers (O): The ED discussed several obstacles and challenges
related to the relationship between the foundation and the community college, as well
as the broader community college system.
• Integration with the college (O): The foundation is an auxiliary and a separate entity
from the community college, leading to challenges in recognition as an integral part
of the college system. The ED emphasized the difficulty in ensuring that the college
71
includes the foundation and remembers it as part of the college community despite
not being college employees.
Understanding the community college system (O): The community college system is
complex, with many acronyms and structures to learn. This complexity can be
challenging for those working at the foundation to navigate and understand.
Financial support from the college (O): The college does not directly fund the
foundation’s salaries or operations, presenting challenges and opportunities. While
this lack of financial support can make the foundation feel undervalued, it also allows
it to operate entrepreneurially, raising funds and determining its own staffing needs
independently.
Potential vulnerability to budget cuts (O): The ED expressed concern that if there was
a direct tie between the foundation’s finances and the college, it might be vulnerable
to budget cuts, potentially being one of the first areas considered for reduction.
In summary, the ED’s reflections highlight the structural challenges that community
college foundations face, including issues of integration, value recognition, and financial
independence. Despite these challenges, the foundation has found ways to navigate its position.
This ED leveraged their entrepreneurial capabilities to effectively support the college and its
students.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 4
The foundation’s ED has a tenure of 38 years at the college, demonstrating deep
commitment and institutional knowledge. Throughout this period, the ED has fostered a culture
of philanthropy at the college and in its broader community. Their long-standing presence has
enabled them to build and maintain strong relationships on campus and in the local community,
72
contributing significantly to the foundation’s success. Critical aspects of the ED’s tenure and
knowledge include
ED tenure strengths (K): Being the first formal ED, they played a foundational role in
establishing the college’s philanthropic functions. Their tenure saw the foundation’s
growth from nascent stages to a significant entity capable of major fundraising
achievements. The ED’s long tenure and deep commitment to the college inspire the
foundation team. Their dedication demonstrates the value of sustained effort and
commitment, motivating staff to emulate these qualities in their work.
Knowledge and motivation (K, M): The ED employs several motivational (M)
strategies to maintain high levels of engagement and productivity among the
foundation team and to foster a supportive and inclusive organizational culture. One
of these strategies is cultivating a sense of purpose by connecting the foundation’s
efforts to the students that it supports and the students’ lives that it aims to touch,
motivating staff by reminding them of the real-world outcomes of their efforts. This
connection to the foundation’s mission and the tangible changes it brings about in
students’ lives is a powerful motivator. Another organizational factor that the ED
emphasizes is building strong internal relationships. The ED ensures staff members
feel valued and supported by fostering a positive and inclusive team environment.
This approach includes recognizing individual contributions, facilitating open
communication, and encouraging collaboration, which enhances job satisfaction and
motivation. Lastly, the ED invests in the growth of her team through professional
development opportunities. This enhances the team’s capabilities and ensures that
staff members feel invested in and motivated by personal and professional growth.
73
Responsive and adaptive leadership (K): The ED’s willingness to take on
unconventional projects and adapt to changing circumstances encourages a culture of
innovation and flexibility. This approach motivates the team to think creatively and
be open to new opportunities and challenges.
Recognition and appreciation (M): The ED ensures that the foundation acknowledges
and celebrates achievements and contributions, both big and small. This recognition
reinforces a positive feedback loop, boosting morale and motivating staff to continue
contributing their best efforts. The ED’s motivational strategies center around
fostering a powerful sense of purpose, building a supportive team environment,
encouraging professional growth, leading by example, leveraging community
connections, embracing innovation, and recognizing achievements. These strategies
collectively contribute to a motivated and engaged foundation team, driving the
organization’s success.
Staff and community relations (M): The ED has built a dedicated team by hiring staff
with diverse backgrounds and skills, aligning with the community’s diverse
population. This inclusiveness has strengthened the foundation’s community relations
and internal culture.
Community integration (O): With over 50 years in the local area, the ED’s extensive
community knowledge and connections have been invaluable. They have adeptly
navigated the local philanthropic landscape, identifying and engaging potential
donors and partners and contributing to the foundation’s financial achievements.
Leveraging community connections (O): The ED highlights external relations by
actively engaging with the local community and building relationships with donors.
74
This strategy aids in fundraising efforts and motivates the team by showing the
broader impact of their work and fostering a sense of belonging within the
community.
Strategic alignment (O): The ED has led numerous successful campaigns, including
significant capital projects, scholarship funds, and program support initiatives,
demonstrating a strategic approach to fundraising aligned with the college’s mission
and priorities.
Adaptability and innovation (O): The ED’s willingness to embrace unconventional
projects, such as accepting complex gifts of real property, highlights its innovative
approach and adaptability. This openness to innovative ideas has contributed to the
foundation’s diverse portfolio of achievements.
Organizational weaknesses and threats (O): The ED has navigated bureaucratic
complexities effectively despite organizational barriers such as separation from the
college’s main administrative structure and challenges in integrating the foundation
into the college’s ecosystem.
Opportunities: There is a possibility that the ED will be involved in the president’s
cabinet. Involvement in the president’s cabinet and the ability to leverage college
resources for fundraising underscores the strategic approach to overcoming
challenges.
In summary, the ED’s long tenure and deep knowledge of the college, the local
community, and the broader philanthropic environment have been a cornerstone of the
foundation’s success. The respondent’s leadership has fostered a culture of philanthropy and
driven strategic fundraising initiatives. Over the 25 years of their tenure, they have built strong
75
community and internal relations, ensuring the foundation’s continued support of the college and
its students.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 5
The interview with the ED of the foundation and institutional advancement operating in a
small, rural college foundation revealed several aspects regarding their approach to fundraising
and foundation management at a rural college. Nine key points emerged:
Organizational financial strengths (O): The foundation experienced significant growth
and raised over $16 million in 14 years, and its current assets are around $7 million,
indicating strong fundraising and financial management. The foundation secured two
significant donations of an estimated $1.5 million each, significantly impacting its
capacity to support the college. The foundation ED organized an industry summit,
which became a significant event in the community. They enhanced the foundation’s
visibility and fundraising capabilities by engaging employers and community leaders.
Donor cultivation (O): Through the ED’s leadership, the foundation emphasizes
donor stewardship and personal engagement by prioritizing personal visits and
maintaining relationships with donors, demonstrating the importance of personal
touch in donor relations.
Strategic board composition (O): The ED builds the foundation’s board by
strategically inviting significant donors to join and integrating them into the
organization’s community and decision-making processes. In addition, the foundation
engages in continuous communication with its donors, keeping donors informed
about the foundation’s activities and successes, fostering a sense of involvement and
ongoing partnership.
76
Community and industry partnerships (O): The foundation invests time and energy in
building strong community relations and community integration. The foundation
actively participates in community events and initiatives, strengthening ties with local
businesses, industries, and individuals. The foundation focuses on developing
programs (e.g., nursing, paramedics) that meet community needs, enhancing the
college’s role and relevance in the local area. The foundation emphasizes inclusivity
and support for a diverse student body, contributing to a positive and welcoming
college environment.
Opportunities (O): Elevating foundation leaders to vice president titles, such as vice
president of advancement and external affairs, would reflect the significance of their
role in the college’s ecosystem. This recognition would align with practices at other
educational institutions, like the CSU, where foundation and advancement staff are
more integrated and acknowledged in the college and university structure. These
measures would address structural challenges and disparities in how colleges treat
foundation staff compared to other college departments. By fully integrating
foundation staff as college employees, providing necessary operational support, and
recognizing their leadership roles, community college foundations can be more
effective in their mission to support their institutions.
Weaknesses and threats: Inclusion and employee status (M): Colleges should include
the foundation staff, including the ED, as college employees. This inclusion would
eliminate the need for foundation staff to pay a portion of their salaries back to the
college, a practice uncommon for other college departments, such as a cafeteria,
which has a built-in revenue stream. Treating foundation staff as college employees
77
would recognize their contributions and integrate them more closely into the college
community.
Weaknesses and threats: operating support (O): Unlike other departments, the
foundation does not receive operating money from the college. Providing operational
support would acknowledge the foundation’s role as a critical business unit,
facilitating its functions and initiatives.
Weaknesses and threats: limited resources and support (O): Initially, the foundation
had minimal funds (only $135,000 in their account) and needed a structured presence.
This foundation, staffed by two FTEs, has also faced legal complexities with trusts
and estates, highlighting the need for legal expertise in handling large donations and
bequests.
Weaknesses and threats: structural limitations (O): The ED desired a title with a
higher status (e.g., vice president) to reflect the significance of their role and efforts,
indicating a need for organizational recognition and structural support.
The interview highlighted personal engagement, community integration, and strategic
program development. This interview also gave insight into a very lightly staffed, highly
efficient organization and how fostering fundraising and foundation growth can occur at a small
rural college. The challenges underscore the need for legal expertise, organizational support, and
structural recognition of the foundation’s value and role.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 6
The discussion focuses on the experiences and challenges the ED, a woman, faced in her
role at an urban CCCF. This ED’s tenure is 2 years. It is important to note that this foundation
78
has experienced flux for 5 years after a long-time ED’s departure. The ED’s current focus is on
strengthening the organization’s policies, procedures, and infrastructure.
Personal strengths (K): The ED believes their strengths lie in building relationships,
follow-through, and leadership, which are essential for team motivation and
engagement.
Professional development (K): Learning on the job and mentoring by experienced
professionals aid in developing fundraising skills. A structured training regime seems
absent.
Setting priorities and goals (M): The foundation’s goals align with the college’s
initiatives, focusing on improving and exceeding operational budgets.
Donor cultivation and stewardship (O): Efforts include engaging donors through
meetings, events, and personal outreach. Acknowledging gifts and involving the
college president in donor relations are key strategies.
Motivation (M): The impact of scholarships and financial aid on students’ lives and
futures serves as critical motivation for the interviewee.
Feedback and communication (M): Regular meetings with the president and board
members provide feedback, though the foundation’s separation from the college’s
executive cabinet limits deeper integration and collaboration.
Foundation achievements (M, O): Achievements highlighted include providing
financial support to students and building a network of donors. However, donor
information loss due to staff turnover has been a challenge.
79
Fundraising activities (O): The ED spent about 20% of her time on fundraising
activities, with a significant portion dedicated to establishing infrastructure and donor
development.
Challenges (O): Understanding nonprofit laws and compliance issues has been
challenging, highlighting the need for clear guidance and training.
Turnover issues (O): The foundation experienced high turnover, especially after the
resignation of a long-serving EDs, leading to challenges in maintaining donor
relationships.
Evaluating success (O): An active board closely monitors the foundation’s success,
emphasizing financial accountability and donor engagement.
Organizational threats (O): The interviewee suggested that if the college absorbs
foundation staff roles, the foundation could direct more funds toward student support.
Better recognition and integration of the foundation into the college’s administrative
structure could also enhance its effectiveness. Overall, the conversation underscored
the importance of building and maintaining relationships at the organization and with
donors and the need for clear structure, accountability, and integration with the
college’s broader goals.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 7
A fundraising professional with 15 years of fundraising experience leads this Southern
California college foundation. The foundation is among the largest in dollars raised, fundraising
per student, staff size, size of endowment, and assets. The conversation covered various aspects
of the foundation’s operations, focusing on strategies for fundraising, donor cultivation, and
engagement with the community. The main points of this foundation include a strong focus on
80
student support via a promising program, acquiring large multi-million-dollar gifts, an
operational structure that is independent of the college’s governance, donor cultivation efforts,
and a culture of innovation and team empowerment.
Fundraising focus (K): The ED devotes a significant portion of her time to
fundraising activities, highlighting financial support for student programs.
Donor cultivation and stewardship (K): The foundation engages in various donor
cultivation events without direct fundraising asks, aiming to create a deeper
connection with potential donors and highlight the impact of their contributions.
Motivation (M): The transformative impact the foundation has on students and
families drives the interviewee’s motivation (M) and commitment to the foundation’s
mission. The foundation continuously strives to improve and learn from each event
and initiative.
Achievements and impact (O): The foundation’s notable achievements include
launching a large-scale Promise Program, fully funded by private donations, and
receiving significant funding from Mackenzie Scott. The program’s success is evident
in increased student participation post-COVID.
Operational structure (O): The foundation operates separately from the college, with
its board and 501c3 status, which provides a unique dynamic in supporting the
college while maintaining autonomy.
Organizational strengths (O): The interviewee emphasizes team empowerment and
organization in driving the foundation’s success. The foundation’s culture fosters
innovation, continuous improvement, and a strong sense of community among staff.
81
Organizational opportunities (O): The foundation faces challenges like navigating
college bureaucracies and needing better student outcome data, which can come from
the college itself. Moreover, the relationship with the college can help with growth
opportunities, particularly in engaging alumni through new initiatives to opt into
foundation communications.
Organizational threats (O): The interviewee suggested that increased resources and
staffing for foundations could enhance their capacity to support community colleges.
Additionally, the college institutions could recognize the value of community
colleges more clearly, which could alleviate data-sharing agreements and funding
pressures to increase support for college foundations and help them achieve their
mission. Overall, the conversation painted a picture of a foundation deeply committed
to supporting its college through innovative fundraising and donor engagement
strategies while recognizing the need for internal improvements and external support
to maximize its impact.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 8
This interview provided rich insight into the operational and strategic aspects of this
foundation in Northern California. The ED discussed various topics, including the foundation’s
mission, strategic planning, fundraising achievements, donor cultivation and stewardship, and the
efforts to foster innovation in organizational culture. The conversation also touched on the
challenges of working at a public institution, aligning with the college’s strategic goals, and
using technology to enhance operational efficiency.
Investment in developing knowledge and skills (K): The foundation emphasizes
professional development (K) for its staff and invests accordingly in fostering a
82
culture of continuous learning and improvement. Investing in foundation staff’s
professional growth through internal and external opportunities can enhance team
capabilities and contribute to the organization’s success.
Goal setting and strategic direction (M): The foundation ensures that the goals and
activities align closely with the college’s strategic plan. This ensures cohesive
progress, maximizing resources, and enhancing motivation among its staff and key
stakeholders (M). The foundation’s strategic planning process closely aligns with the
college’s strategic goals, ensuring focused and relevant fundraising efforts; this
practice provides an expectancy and value for the leadership of the college, the
donors, and the foundation. The foundation emphasizes understanding and connecting
with donors’ motivations, which has led to strong fundraising and meaningful
relationships with donors.
Donor-centered fundraising (K, M): The foundation has a diverse fundraising
strategy, including scholarships, endowments, and capital campaigns, which has been
essential to its success. The foundation emphasizes understanding donor motivations
(M) and creating meaningful connections that can lead to more effective fundraising.
Engaging in regular communication with donors, providing updates on the impact of
their contributions, and personalizing interactions based on donor interests can
strengthen relationships and support long-term fundraising goals.
Leveraging technology to improve efficiencies (O): This foundation leverages
technology, such as customer relationship management systems (O), for efficient data
management and donor engagement. This includes maintaining comprehensive
records and utilizing wealth screening tools for prospect research. In addition to
83
investing in systems and technology, the foundation emphasizes professional growth
for its staff.
Organizational strengths culture of innovation (O): The foundation enlists numerous
best practices and strengths discussed throughout the literature review. The most
noteworthy practices are strategic alignment with the institutions, donor engagement,
and relationships with industry, corporations, and alumni to develop mutually
beneficial partnerships such as workforce programs and focus on building a strong
endowment for scholarships, facilities, and college programs. The foundation
emphasizes fostering a culture of innovation, collaboration, and shared purpose
among staff as a driver of the foundation’s success and contributes to a positive
institutional reputation.
Long-lasting relationships with donors and strong financial performance (O): Lastly,
the foundation makes efforts to create and sustain strong connections with local
employers, corporations, and alumni to bolster support for the foundation’s initiatives
and enhance workforce development partnerships. The ED reported that this
foundation has evidence of strong financial performance. The foundation has a
significant annual fundraising goal, increasing it from $6 million to over $10 million,
with the last reported figure being $10.6 million. The foundation manages a large
endowment, up to $75 million, with around $88 million in overall assets. The
foundation has set a fundraising goal of $15 million to support projects associated
with a bond measure. The foundation awards over $5 million annually in
scholarships, potentially increasing to $7 million, indicating robust program
management.
84
Organizational weaknesses (O): The foundation faces three main challenges: the
bureaucracy of public institutions, the need for more staff to conduct its obligations
and functions, and technological limitations. The transition from private to public
sector brought challenges related to bureaucracy, including slower decision-making
processes and the complexities of shared governance. There is a need for more staff
to expand the foundation’s capabilities, particularly in areas like athletics fundraising,
frontline fundraising, and planned giving. The foundation faces technological
limitations, such as database management challenges and the need for a more
comprehensive customer relationship management system to enhance operational
efficiency.
Opportunities (O): The ED of this foundation is capitalizing on new opportunities to
expand several initiatives, beginning with the organization’s efforts in planned giving
programs. This foundation leader sees an opportunity to develop more robust planned
giving programs, which can provide a significant long-term financial foundation. The
ED is leading the organization to adopt advanced technological solutions, such as
comprehensive customer relationship management systems, to streamline operations
and enhance donor engagement strategies. The foundation is innovating and building
on athletic strengths by developing a dedicated fundraising role for athletics, similar
to models seen in other institutions, to alleviate the burden on coaches and potentially
increase funding for athletic programs. This foundation explores new fundraising
models, such as community-centric fundraising, which can introduce more equitable
and inclusive practices, aligning with broader societal values and potentially
attracting a diverse donor base.
85
Organizational threats (O): The interview transcript reveals several aspects of the
foundation’s financial performance, organizational challenges, strengths, and
opportunities for community college foundations.
In summary, while the foundation faces bureaucracy, staffing, and technology challenges,
its strategic alignment, donor engagement practices, and emphasis on professional development
stand out as key strengths. Looking forward, leveraging technology, expanding planned giving,
and exploring innovative fundraising models present significant opportunities for growth and
continued student support and college campus support provided by the foundation’s
philanthropic efforts. Implementing these practices can help other community college
foundations enhance their effectiveness in supporting their institutions and students.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Insights: College 9
The ED of this foundation in Northern California brings a wealth of knowledge and
experience to the role, with notable strengths and tenure. The ED has been in the role for about 9
years. The ED’s knowledge and skills stand out in community connections, strategic thinking,
operational execution, event management, multi-faceted approaches to fundraising, scholarship
growth, and donor relations.
Knowledge and Skills (K)
The ED’s deep roots in the community have allowed for the cultivation of strong
relationships that benefit the foundation. The ED must use a more complex strategic approach to
identify potential donors and develop tailored cultivation and stewardship plans. This strategic
thinking extends to effectively setting fundraising targets and aligning them with the college’s
needs. People describe the ED as someone who “gets things done,” partly due to their ability to
initiate and run programs such as the Student Success Grant program, which has positively
86
impacted the college community. The ED of the foundation and college partnerships spends 85%
to 90% of their time on foundation-related activities, which broadly encompass fundraising
efforts. Within this time, the direct activities related to fundraising, such as donor asks,
proposals, and managing fundraising committees, could be approximately 45 to 50%.
Metacognitive Skills and Self-Reflection (K, M)
The ED prioritizes health and wellness as a motivational factor. The ED emphasizes
personal health and work-life balance as a strategy for maintaining focus and motivation,
highlighting an area where foundations could support staff more effectively. Despite the many
accomplishments, the ED reflected and acknowledged a desire to improve time management and
prioritization, mainly focusing more on fundraising and donor outreach activities. Specifically,
the ED shared,
I often feel like I am underwater, and my head is barely there. I barely have my mouth
out of the water to breathe. And it is like, okay, I got to let it go and accept what I can do
in the amount of time I have. And sometimes, it’s tough because I know I can do things
better, but I don’t have the time to do it. It’s like, I got to get it done. You got to get it
done. I got to get it done. Done. Done is more important than perfection.
There is an expressed need for improved delegation, although this is a challenge because
of limited resources at the foundation, which has a staff of two, including the ED. The interview
highlights the ED’s robust experience, strategic acumen, and impactful contributions to the
foundation’s success, tempered by the realistic challenges of managing a high workload with
limited resources. This interview provides insights into another CCCF’s operations, challenges,
and successes. Through a brief analysis, here is a breakdown of the interview’s key points and
subsequent analysis.
87
Organizational Strengths in Financial Performance and Fundraising Achievements (O)
The ED emphasized building solid relationships with donors, focusing on understanding
their interests and motivations to ensure that fundraising efforts align with their passions and
priorities. The foundation’s annual fundraiser has grown from $40,000 to $130,000,
demonstrating the ED’s significant expertise in event planning and execution. Under their
leadership, the foundation has increased its scholarship offerings from $100,000 annually to
approximately $280,000. A notable accomplishment is securing a million-dollar donation to
endow scholarships. The foundation established strong relationships in the community and
among donors, contributing to its success. The foundation employs strategic donor cultivation
and stewardship practices, tailoring communication and engagement based on donor interests
and ensuring regular updates on the impact of their contributions. Innovative initiatives like the
Student Success Grant program have supported student learning and served as practical tools for
donor engagement and storytelling.
Organizational Threats and Challenges (O)
The foundation operates with a small team of two. The size of the team leads to
challenges in managing the workload and prioritizing tasks. There are no formal processes for
setting fundraising priorities and goals, so the foundation relies more on historical data and input
from college leadership.
Organizational Improvement Opportunities (O)
Participation in conferences and workshops, especially those led by experienced
foundation professionals, aids in gaining new insights and strategies. To mitigate challenges of
limited staff resources, namely, FTE of two and a small budget, the foundation is exploring AI
tools like ChatGPT for tasks such as drafting speeches and thank-you letters, indicating a
88
willingness to adopt new technologies for efficiency. This interview confirmed the importance of
community connections, strategic donor engagement, processes and tools for goal setting and
strategic alignment with the college, and the need for adequate staffing and technological
resources to enhance the effectiveness of community college foundations.
Summary of Correlational and Statistically Significant Findings
This study used the Pearson correlation coefficient and the two-tailed t-test to measure
significant statistical findings. The Pearson correlation coefficients in the dataset indicate the
strength and direction of the linear relationship between pairs of variables, with the following
interpretations concerning staff tenure, staff size, organizational operating costs, size of the
endowment, and size of organizational assets. This chapter includes a discussion of each of these
findings. The data in the following tables offer a statistical view of fundraising efforts,
operational aspects, and the current financial landscape of CCCFs for a meaningful sample size
(n = 38). Analyzing the trends within this dataset, several insights emerged into how these
foundations operate, their financial health, and their fundraising capabilities.
College Rankings Based on Fundraising per Student
Table 2 shows the 38 colleges ranked by fundraising-per-student ratio. The ratio varies
significantly, from a high of $1,385 to a low of $20. There appears to be a wide range in the
number of full-time students and average annual fundraising amounts across these colleges due
to their size variability. The average annual fundraising varies widely, from a few hundred
thousand to over $11 million. The data shows a wide dispersion in fundraising efficiency across
colleges, indicating that certain institutions have far more effective fundraising strategies or
advantages. The fundraising-per-student ratio method to measure effectiveness is adapted from a
study of top-performing community college foundations in the country done by the CASE and
89
presented by Kubik and Flahaven (2018) at a CASE conference. The list of college rankings
identified the top 10 performers to analyze comparative factors that support fundraising and can
be helpful to the remaining institutions’ benchmarking. The additional tables enabled an analysis
of statistically significant factors, such as whether the fundraising-per-student ratio correlates
with the ranking or other factors.
Rankings of Foundations With Staff Size and Total Operating Costs
Similar to Table 2, Table 3 ranks colleges by fundraising-per-student ratio. Table 3
includes staff size and total operating expenses. Table 3 shows a notable variation in staff size
(from 0 to 14 FTE) and operating expenses, suggesting differences in operational scale and
efficiency. Total operating expenses range from $20,626 to $2,700,000. The correlations
discussed in this table are the relationship between staff size, total operating expenses, and
fundraising efficiency. Positive correlations could be investigated between staff size or operating
expenses and the fundraising-per-student ratio to identify if there is an efficiency threshold,
which I discuss in Chapter Five.
90
Table 3
Rankings of Foundations With Staff Size and Total Operating Costs
Ranking College
Fundraising per
student/ratio
Avg. annual
fundraising
Total operating
expense Staff size in FTE
1 College $1,385 $8,865,425 $1,139,189 11
2 College $897 $11,296,370 $1,714,154 14
3 College $870 $7,897,988 $310,665 7
4 College $691 $4,274,663 $1,064,673 5.75
5 College $682 $9,171,987 $1,492,321 4
6 College $652 $1,281,542 $120,061 2
7 College $578 $8,079,500 $1,135,929 4.75
8 College $555 $8,030,047 $496,315 6.50
9 College $546 $994,667 $145,000 –
10 College $439 $6,051,900 $173,470 4
11 College $335 $1,768,409 $372,423 1.86
12 College $331 $1,212,499 $602,749 2.50
13 College $326 $397,389 $96,533 1.50
14 College $319 $6,000,000 $2,700,000 5.00
15 College $306 $3,002,829 $648,214 2.60
16 College $279 $1,195,481 $422,656 1
17 College $275 $3,370,599 $694,083 4
18 College $263 $4,986,016 $797,247 6.50
19 College $200 $2,805,226 $722,295 5.00
20 College $188 $1,500,000 $450,000 2
21 College $184 $1,728,885 $720,211 3.60
22 College $124 $1,778,732 $2,153,322 5
23 College $116 $2,284,406 $587,489 6
24 College $100 $466,944 $387,828 2.50
25 College $98 $848,489 $178,471 4
26 College $93 $767,755 $517,644 2
27 College $86 $352,095 $300,028 1
28 College $82 $836,581 $213,431 4
29 College $77 $535,278 $162,161 1
30 College $72 $1,304,497 $1,581,403 2
31 College $64 $645,376 $793,800 2.25
32 College $54 $306,810 $20,626 1
33 College $40 $194,413 $16,089 1
34 College $29 $405,411 $550,000 1
35 College $20 $169,141 $42,177 –
36 College – $635,942 $107,963 7
37 College – $2,059,921 $665,326 4
38 College – $3,676,952 $267,007 9
n = 38 35 38 38 37
91
Quantitative Findings
Table 4 provides a summary of key metrics such as the fundraising ratio, annual
fundraising, number of students, net assets, endowment size, net assets, staff size, and operating
expenses. There is a wide range of standard deviations for variables like fundraising and net
assets, indicating high variability among institutions. The statistical significance and correlations
in this table include correlations between variables such as staff size or tenure of the EDs and
fundraising outcomes that could be insightful to college and foundation leaders. The fundraising
ratio mean is 324.51 (M = 324.51), and the standard deviation is 308.76 (SD = 308.76). The
annual fundraising mean is 2,925,793.80 (M = 2,925,793.80), standard deviation: 3,061,835.96
(SD = 3,061,835.96). The mean in staff size FTE is 3.98 (M = 3.98), and the standard deviation is
2.99 (SD = 2.99). Statistical observations to consider include the high standard deviations in key
metrics like the fundraising ratio and annual fundraising, indicating significant variability among
college institutions. This suggests that while some institutions are very successful at fundraising,
others are much less so.
92
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics
Measure n Min Max M SD
Fundraising per student ratio 35 20 1384 324 308
Annual fundraising 38 169,140 11,296,369 2,925,793 3,061,835
Number of FTES 35 1,217 19,641 9,631 5,145
Tenure of ED 36 1 20 6.30 4.48
Staff size in FTE 37 0 14.00 3.98 2.98
Total net assets as of 2022 38 358,130 81,323,064 17,650,989 20,765,241
Endowment size 31 97,293 80,000,000 13,201,857 17,771,994
Total operating expense 38 20,626 2,700,000 650,204 605,645
Pearson Correlations for All Respondents
Table 5 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients between institutional characteristics
and fundraising and fundraising per student. Correlations with asterisks are statistically
significant (p <.05), with staff size and total assets showing large positive correlations with the
two fundraising metrics. These findings suggest that staff size (r = .730) and total asset base
(r = .669) are key to per-student fundraising success. Additionally, fundraising and staff size in
FTE have a Pearson correlation of .752 (r = .752). Much smaller correlations presented with the
size of endowment (r = .481) and total operating expense (r = .246). The statistical observations
of this table demonstrate strong positive correlations between staff size and fundraising per
student, and between total assets and fundraising per student, suggesting that institutions with
larger staffs, more resources, and personnel are generally more effective at fundraising.
93
Table 5
Pearson Correlations
Measure Fundraising Fundraising per
student
Number of full-time students Pearson correlation .421*
-.085
Observed probability .012 .628
n 35 35
Tenure of executive director Pearson correlation .218 .322
Observed probability .201 .068
n 36 33
Staff size in full-time equivalent Pearson correlation .752*
.730*
Observed probability .001 .001
n 37 34
Total net assets as of 2022 Pearson correlation .834*
.669*
Observed probability .001 .001
n 38 35
Endowment size Pearson correlation .726*
.481*
Observed probability .001 .008
n 31 29
Total operating expense Pearson correlation .499*
.246
Observed probability .001 .154
n 38 35
Note. *indicates correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
94
T-test High-Performing Institutions Compared to Remaining Institutions
Table 6 compares the 10 highest-performing institutions to the remaining institutions
based on fundraising per student. I observed significant differences in staff size, total gross
assets, and fundraising and fundraising per student metrics. The t values and observed
probabilities indicate which differences are statistically significant. The difference in mean
fundraising per student between high performers and the remaining institutions is 566 (M = 729
for high performers versus M = 163 for the remaining institutions). The mean for staff size in
FTE for high performers is M = 6.55 compared to M = 2.73 for the remaining institutions. The
key statistically significant finding in this table is that high performers have significantly larger
staff sizes and greater assets, suggesting larger staff and greater assets enhance performance.
Table 6
T-Test Highest-Performing Institutions Compared to Remaining Institutions
Measures
Highest performing
(n = 10)
Remaining institutions
(n = 25)
M SD M SD t p
Number of FTES 9,375 4,997 9,734 5,302 -0.19 .853
Tenure of ED 8.62 5.43 5.58 4.10 1.52 .155
Staff size in FTE 6.55 4.10 2.73 1.77 2.94 .016*
Total net assets ($M) 38.6 2.70 9.6 1.1 3.29 .008*
Endowment size ($M) 30 30.6 7.7 7.5 1.91 .103
Total operating expense ($K) 779 99 635 637 0.63 .536
Fundraising ($M) 6.6 3.41 1.55 1.49 4.5 .001*
Fundraising per student 729 270 163 109 6.42 .000*
95
T-test Suburban Versus Urban
Table 7 compares fundraising metrics between suburban and urban institutions. The mean
fundraising per student is M = 409 for suburban and M = 245 for urban. The t-test value of
(t = -1.40) and observed probability (p = .174) suggest no significant difference between
suburban and urban institutions in terms of fundraising per student. The small sample may
contribute to the lack of statistical significance. Thus, the difference between urban versus
suburban warrants further investigation.
Table 7
T-test Suburban Versus Urban
Measure
Suburban
n = 16
Urban
n = 17
M SD M SD t p
Fundraising ($M) 4.20 3.72 2.20 2.28 -1.86 .075
Fundraising per student 409.00 386.00 245.00 237.00 -1.40 .174
96
T-test South Coast Geographical Area Compared to the Remaining Institutions
Table 8 includes a breakdown of the differences in fundraising based on geographical
location. The mean fundraising per student is M = 8.62 for the South Coast and M = 5.58 for the
rest of the state. There was a marginally significant difference (t = 1.80) with an observed
probability of p = .082, indicating a potential but not a definitive advantage for South Coast
institutions. While there is a hint of geographical influence on fundraising efficiency, the
statistical evidence is not strong enough to conclusively say that being in the South Coast area
significantly enhances fundraising outcomes. Nonetheless, the difference requires further study.
Table 8
T-Test South Coast Geographical Area Compared to the Remaining Institutions
Measure
South Coast
n = 19
Rest of the state
n = 19
M SD M SD t p
Fundraising 2.95 3.40 2.90 2.76 .049 .961
Fundraising per student 8.62 5.43 5.58 4.10 1.801 .082
97
Summary of Quantitative Findings
Across the tables, a variety of factors influence fundraising performance, from staff size
to gross assets. Correlations between staff size, total assets, and fundraising outcomes are
statistically significant, highlighting these factors in fundraising. However, geographical
distinctions (urban versus suburban, South Coast versus rest of the state) do not significantly
impact fundraising metrics. This analysis underscores the interplay of factors affecting CCCFs’
fundraising, with organizational capabilities and assets playing key roles. High-performing
institutions distinguish themselves with larger staff sizes and higher fundraising per student,
indicating more effective or resource-rich fundraising operations.
Summary of Comparative Analysis
This study did not have access to the raw data from 2012. As such, I took the summary
table of findings for the 2012 FCCC report and re-created the staffing tables with comparable
data from the NCCCF 2023 survey. Of note, the 2012 data includes a much larger sample of 88
respondents in 2012 versus 42 in 2023. Nevertheless, I analyzed the trends in each size category
to report any observable trends.
2012 Survey Findings of Staff Capacity
In 2012, among the 88 foundations that responded, 38% had one or fewer full-time
employees, 45% had between one and five full-time employees, and 17% had six or more fulltime employees supporting the advancement office and foundation operations. For a comparative
analysis, the 2023 survey results state that among the 42 foundations that responded, 19% had
one or fewer full-time employees, 59% had between one and five FTE employees, and 14% had
six to 10 FTE, and 7% had 10 or more FTE supporting the advancement office and foundation
operations. Tables 9 and 10 show a positive trend toward staff growth from this data over time,
98
most notably the decrease from 38% in 2012 to 19% in 2023 in the proportion of foundations
with one or fewer full-time staff. Between 2012 and 2023, the proportion of foundations
employing one to five people full-time rose from 45% to 59%. From 17% in 2012 to 14% in
2023, the proportion of foundations with six or more full-time staff declined marginally. In 2023,
however, the distribution of foundations in this group shifted, with more having between six and
10 staff and fewer having six or more.
Table 9
2012 FCCC Survey Staff Data
2012 FCCC Survey: size of foundation staff (n = 88 responses) Percentage of foundations
Staff size of 1 FTE or less 38%
Staff size of 1–3 FTE 30%
Staff size of 3–5 FTE 15%
Staff size of 6–10 FTE 15%
Staff size of 10 FTE or more 2%
Note. Adapted from California Community Colleges Foundations Survey Summary by
Foundation for California Community Colleges, 2012. Copyright 2012 by Foundation for
California Community Colleges.
99
Table 10
2023 NCCCF survey Staff Data
Size of foundation staff in FTE (n = 42 responses) Percentage of foundations
Staff size of 1 FTE or less 19%
Staff size of 1-3 FTE 33%
Staff size of 3-5 FTE 26%
Staff size of 6-10 FTE 14%
Staff size of 10 FTE or more 7%
The makeup of foundation staff has changed significantly between 2012 and 2023.
Specifically, the percentage of foundations with one or fewer full-time employees has decreased
significantly, while the percentage of foundations with one to five people has increased.
Furthermore, while the proportion of foundations employing six or more people full-time
decreased somewhat from 2012 to 2023, the number of foundations in this category changed
from six or more employees to more with six to 10 employees.
Although the sample for the 2012 survey is much larger than for the 2023 survey, the
comparable data is a meaningful sample that shows a possible move toward larger staff and
capacity for CCCFs. The comparative tables must be considered in addition to the statistically
significant findings in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 above.
Size of Staff and Fundraising
Using staff size as a classification, the examination of college foundations produced
informative trends in fundraising from 2019 to 2022. Table 11 provides the percentage of
foundations in each staff size category relative to the total number of entries (sample size) with
100
staff size data. This study calculated the percentage contribution of each staff size category to the
total average funds raised by all categories over 3 years, from 2019–2022.
Table 11
Staff Size, Averaged Raised, and Percentage of Overall Raised by Staff Category
Staff size
Average
raised per
year
Average
raised over
3 years
weighted by
foundations
staff
category
Sample
n = 42
Valid
frequency
percentage
Percentage of total
average raised by all
foundations by staff
category
1 or less $442,220 $3,537,759 8 19.05% 2.54%
1–3 $1,359,410 $19,031,733 14 33.33% 7.80%
4–5 $3,884,711 $42,731,820 11 26.19% 22.28%
6–10 $4,737,465 $28,424,787 6 14.29% 27.17%
10 or more $7,011,984 $21,035,953 3 7.14% 40.22%
101
Around $3.54 million, or 19% of the total donations raised, went to foundations with one
full-time employee or fewer, as the accompanying chart demonstrates. These organizations
raised an average of $442,220 each. The 1-to-3 FTE group (33.33%) raised approximately
$19.03 million, with an average donation of $1.36 million per foundation. The 3–5 FTE group
(26.19% of the sample) raised approximately $42.73 million, or $3.88 million, on average for
each foundation. This finding suggests high efficiency. Even though they constituted 14.29% of
the sample, foundations with six to 10 full-time employees contributed significantly: on average,
they contributed $4.74 million, totaling $28.42 million. Notably, the category with 10 FTE or
more had a total raised of approximately $21.04 million, the greatest average per foundation, at
$7.01 million, with the smallest sample of three foundations. These findings show that staff size
and fundraising capacity are positively correlated, as stated previously, underscoring the role of
human capital investments in promoting foundation effectiveness.
According to the qualitative data, there is a focus on student-centered fundraising
priorities, increased capacity, organizational efficiencies, larger endowments, and strategic
alignment with institutional goals. All these trends indicate that CCCFs are complex and varied
organizations. Several factors influence these foundations’ fundraising effectiveness, including
staffing levels, best practices that complement regional sectors, effective alumni relations, donor
cultivation, and assets to support operational finances.
Summary of Quantitative Findings
The CCCFs’ fundraising effectiveness is influenced by knowledge (K) and motivation
(M) factors. Knowledge and motivational factors include knowledge and skills to set fundraising
goals and create strategic plans that align with institutional goals and students’ needs. In
addition, Eds/CEOs need the knowledge and skills to navigate a complex political environment
102
while building effective partnerships with the institution. The EDs of the highest-performing
foundations have the knowledge and skills to self-regulate and increase self-efficacy to increase
motivation (M) and persist in the midst of a challenging and highly complex system. Lastly,
there are key organizational (O) factors that support fundraising effectiveness, including staffing
levels, total assets, and implementing best practices and strategies led by the EDs, such as
strategic alignment with their institutional goal setting and strategic planning, effective alumni
relations, corporate, foundation, and donor cultivation, and assets to support operational finances.
Summary of Findings
Using Clark and Estes’s (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization gap analysis
framework, the following research questions guided this study to determine the effectiveness of
the fundraising efforts, the best practices implemented among this study’s 10 best-performing
foundations, and a comparison analysis to key findings from the 2012 FCCC survey:
1. What knowledge factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
2. What motivational factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
3. What organizational factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
Research Question 1: What Knowledge Factors Support Philanthropic Success at
California’s Community Colleges? (K)
The mixed-methods study enabled me to find high-performing foundations based on
funding per FTES. I identified 10 foundations and interviewed nine of their leaders for this
103
study. Based on the interviews of EDs, I provide findings on key knowledge factors that
contribute to these foundations’ successful performance.
Qualitative Results RQ 1: Knowledge
This study found that the higher-performing foundations have experienced and
knowledgeable directors who think strategically and politically and can leverage institutional
resources and college support to raise efficiencies for the organization and its college institution.
This finding agrees with Razo’s (2022) findings regarding the highly political frame within
which community college foundations operate. This finding also aligns with findings from Kubik
and Flahaven’s (2018) findings regarding the correlation between the foundation leader’s tenure
and fundraising.
This study’s findings also determined that EDs of the top-performing foundations have
social entrepreneurship and take measured risks to support their college institutions. Bergstrom’s
(2015) study of community colleges’ fundraising practices found that the Council on Resource
Development, a higher education fundraising association, identified entrepreneurship as a
characteristic of success. However, this study did not find evidence to support that notion. The
qualitative analysis reveals that seven out of 10, or 70%, of the foundations engaged in
entrepreneurial work, catalyzing new initiatives, taking risks such as dealing with complicated
gifts of real property and hiring consultants and experts to mitigate the predominant issue of staff
challenges (FCCC, 2012). Also, 38% of foundations were operating with one staff or less, and an
additional 45% operated with a staff of two to five FTE (FCCC, 2012).
Our qualitative analysis revealed that nine out of 10 EDs have strong business acumen as
they manage fiscal operations, as well as relationship management, technology and systems, and
marketing and operations. They are multi-faceted in their knowledge of philanthropy, business,
104
and financial operations, donor-customer relationship management systems, strategic planning
and alignment, coalition building and board management, and navigating politically complex
systems, as Razo (2022) posited. This finding is also visible in the 2014 CASE survey on
community college foundations. The qualitative data revealed that these top-performing
foundation EDs had declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge of their scope of
responsibilities (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The qualitative data provided insight into the foundation EDs/CEOs of the 10 bestperforming foundations for factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge related
to their organization, demonstrating knowledge in all four areas of Clark and Estes’s (2008)
factors for knowledge. In addition, Clark and Estes posited that an assessment of experience,
education, training, and job aides can demonstrate knowledge and skills gaps. All nine
interviewees reported factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge of their
roles and articulated areas for improvement in their personal growth and their organization’s
current and desired state (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002).
Declarative Knowledge, Procedural, and Conceptual and Metacognitive Knowledge (K)
Foundation EDs have broad responsibilities that include multiple direct functions and
responsibilities beyond the chief fundraising officer (CASE, 2015). Eight of 10 respondents
reported multiple responsibilities, including fundraising, operations, financial management,
policies and procedures, external and government relations, community, industry, alums, and
donor relations. All nine foundations provided specific examples of their strengths and how they
are contributing to their college’s and their foundation’s success.
105
Quantitative Results RQ 1: Knowledge
The knowledge and skills held by an organization’s or team’s members are critical to
organizational success (Clark & Estes, 2008). Individual members obtain these knowledge and
skills through experience, training, job aides, and formal education (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
foundation EDs/CEOs’ average tenure in the dataset’s 10 highest-performing foundations is 8.6
years (n = 9). The quantitative results from this study reveal that the foundation ED/CEO for the
remaining foundations is 5.6 years for the remainder of the foundations (n = 24).
There is a moderate relationship between staff tenure and fundraising efficiency per
student. The data suggests that the longer extended staff members have been in their positions,
the better they might be at raising funds on a per-student basis. The correlation with staff tenure
is (r = .322). However, this correlation is not statistically significant at the 0.05 level (p = > .05),
so it should be interpreted cautiously. This finding does not agree with Kubik and Flahaven’s
(2018) findings that the longevity of an ED/foundation enhances fundraising success. Further,
the 2012 FCCC study did not produce correlational findings on staff tenure. Other than the
Kubik and Flahaven (2018) study on what sets top-performing foundations apart, other literature
on this topic does not support this weak correlational finding.
Research Question 2: What Motivational Factors Support Philanthropic Success at
California’s Community Colleges? (M)
Clark and Estes (2008) posited that motivation is a critical factor in one's choice to invest
time and effort and to persist in a specific task. Nine foundation EDs provided important insights
into the motivational factors that contribute to their fundraising success. Based on these
interviews, I provide findings on key motivational factors that contribute to these foundations’
successful performance.
106
Qualitative Results: Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Utility Value
This study found that nine out of 10 foundations have a vision for improvement of their
foundation and themselves. These foundation EDs practice self-regulation and self-reflection that
allows them to think strategically and use metacognitive skills to assess, reflect, and ideate how
to improve their foundation and their personal and professional growth (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Krathwohl, 2002). Despite the varied size of small teams and limited resources, seven out of 10
EDs had strategic plans, annual action plans, and short and mid-term or long-term fundraising
plans and goals, pointing toward motivational factors such as expectancy, value, utility, and
intrinsic and extrinsic nature. A semi-formal to very formal process for goal setting was a
prevalent practice among eight out of 10 top-performing foundations. Semi-formal included
processes such as engaging staff in the analysis of past fundraising performance data, analysis of
budgetary constraints, and board approval of goals and budgets to a very formalized process of
including multi-year strategic plans with community and stakeholder engagement processes and
national benchmarks with key performance indicators. In all nine top-performing foundations,
goal setting was a motivational factor and a best practice.
This study also found that the most mentioned and prevalent motivational factor for the
top-performing foundations was the mission and the intrinsic value of helping students and being
a driver of positive change for community college students and the extrinsic value of the utility
value of their foundation’s fundraising efforts. In both of the interview questions regarding
motivation and motivation factors, supporting students and seeing the fruits of their work
translate into direct student support was a factor in infusing and maintaining motivation. The
EDs made intentional efforts to meet students, attend student presentations, and read student
letters.
107
The EDs mentioned two additional motivational and self-regulation factors: speaking to
faculty to hear how the funds raised by the foundation are supporting their efforts and, less
mentioned, speaking to donors and appreciating how the donors enjoyed the process of giving to
the college and its students. Eccles and Wigfield (2002) posited that intrinsic value, extrinsic
value, and expectancy of the outcome influence the motivation of choice, effort, and persistence.
The pragmatic but necessary step of goal setting to set the expected outcome of the effort paired
with the intrinsic motivation of helping students, supporting faculty, and collaborating with
philanthropic individuals creates a powerful motivation dynamic that supports the EDs. So far,
the study findings provided qualitative data to answer the knowledge and motivation research
questions. Answering the organizational factors for CCCF success relied on quantitative
analysis.
Motivational Factors: Goal Setting and Measurement of Progress
Measuring and monitoring progress toward a goal is a motivating factor (Clark & Estes,
2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, 2020). The qualitative data revealed that among the 10 bestperforming foundations in the data set (n = 10), eight out of nine foundations focus on major
gifts and endowments, and six out of nine focus on planned giving. Furthermore, eight out of
nine of the top-performing foundations use the size of the endowment as one of the
measurements of their success. Among other measurements of success, these foundations use the
amount raised, the growth in assets and the size of the endowment, the scholarships awarded, and
the funds provided back to the college institution as performance indicators. Less mentioned but
still of note under motivational factors were tracking, donor visits, and conversations with
faculty. Even though the college foundations do not formally track this metric, seven out of 10
foundations note that speaking to donors motivates them, and six out of 10 report that speaking
108
to faculty motivates them to persist in fundraising for their community college. The most
commonly mentioned motivational factor for the top-performing foundations was speaking,
hearing, interacting, and seeing the students who are recipients of philanthropic support. Nine out
of 10 foundation EDs/CEOs mentioned students as the primary motivator to persist in their
fundraising work.
Quantitative Results RQ 2: Motivation Choice, Effort, Persistence, Expectancy, and Value
I did not conduct correlational calculations on motivational factors; however, this study
found noteworthy findings from the comparative and qualitative analyses related to motivational
factors, specifically the expectancy and value of the outcomes, priorities, and goal setting.
Knowing the expectancy outcome of the work and its intrinsic or extrinsic value produces
increased effort, choice, activities, and persistence (Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles
& Wigfield, 2002, 2020). Specifically, eight out of nine top-performing foundations reported
having fundraising goals that aligned with the institution’s highest priorities. This alignment
created expectancy and value from the college’s leadership, college foundation board, and staff.
Motivational Factors: Comparative Analysis, Fundraising Priorities
Setting priorities, setting goals, and having a sense of direction toward an expected
outcome can positively affect motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, 2020).
In the 2012 FCCC study, more than half of the respondents (54%) selected student scholarships
as one of their top priorities. Forty-four percent cited campus-based and student support as a
priority for fundraising. The highest priority for fundraising includes grants, initiatives, college
programs, and special project requests. Twenty percent of respondents reported unrestricted
funds and operating support as a primary focus for their fundraising efforts. In 2012, a mere 5%
of college foundations reported that planned giving, endowments, and major gifts are among
109
their top priorities when it comes to fundraising. The 2023 survey does not include this question;
thus, this study did not have enough data to analyze this question. The qualitative data will
provide insight into the priorities of the 10 highest-performing foundations. However, it will not
be sufficient data to compare it to the 2012 FCCC Survey.
Research Question 3: What Organizational Factors Support Philanthropic Success at
California’s Community Colleges? (O)
Clark and Estes (2008) stated that organizational processes, procedures, and resources are
critical to organizational effectiveness. The EDs of nine high-performing foundations provided
insight into organizational factors that support fundraising success for their foundations. The
following section provides a summary of the organizational factors that support fundraising
success based on this study’s results.
Qualitative Results for Organizational Factors: Complexity of Participatory Governance
Model (O)
Community colleges operate in complex, political, and bureaucratic systems that create a
steep learning curve for foundation professionals. These systems are not currently addressed
through intentional efforts and investments in professional development (Bergstrom, 2015; Razo,
2022). Seven respondents shared that the most significant challenge they faced was learning to
operate within the community college system’s organizational model and its complex and
bureaucratic participatory governance model. Razo’s (2022) study on community colleges as
political organizations with complex systems supports this finding.
Inclusion of the Foundation ED/CEO in Executive Cabinet (K, M, O)
Membership in the executive cabinet meetings provides insights into the college’s
strategic direction, and it helps the foundation ED/CEO obtain knowledge of the priorities of the
110
institution’s senior leadership (CASE, 2015; FCCC, 2012). Eight respondents reported that being
part of the executive cabinet increases knowledge of the institution’s direction at the highest
level. It also motivates the respondents, as it represents the inclusion of the foundation as a key
component of the college’s functions.
Qualitative Results for Staffing (O)
The qualitative interviews supported the triangulation of data found in the quantitative
study. All 10 respondents reported that the challenge they see and experience in CCCFs was the
need for more capacity to fundraise due to low staff numbers. Two top performers operated with
a staff of two FTEs, including the ED. This stark difference between the top performers and the
remaining foundations supports the overall findings in the statewide survey, which indicates that
14 out of 38 foundations operate with two staff or less. Notably, nine out of 10 foundations use
consultants to support various operation areas, including marketing, social media, event
planning, and planned giving. Seven out of 10 foundations have internal fiscal oversight; they
rely on the executive director/foundation CEO to oversee all aspects of the operations, including
fiscal management, operations, fundraising, advocacy, and marketing. Due to some of these
foundations’ multiple functions, the time dedicated to fundraising activities can vary.
Quantitative Findings for Organizational Factors
Within the KMO framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), descriptive, comparative, and
correlational analyses provided granular-level quantitative answers to the three research
questions. Two comparative questions led the analysis: What organizational factors in
California’s top-performing foundations compare to those with lower fundraising success?
Further, I analyzed to what extent survey responses changed from the 2012 FCCC survey of
111
CCCFs to the 2023 NCCCF survey of the same population. I analyzed correlational analysis
questions, including the following:
1. Is there a correlation between the number of full-time fundraising employees and
community college foundations’ fundraising performance?
2. Does the time the chief fundraising officer and college district president/chancellor
dedicate to philanthropic activities relate to the institution’s philanthropic
performance?
Finally, I analyzed the expected ROI for every dollar spent in funding the operations and staff
salaries of a CCCF.
112
Chapter Five: Discussion
The CCC system is the largest higher education system in the country, with 1.8 million
students, over 70% of whom are from diverse ethnic backgrounds (CCCCO, 2022). Community
colleges are the only open-access higher education institutions, enabling students from diverse
socioeconomic status, lived experiences, and educational backgrounds to prepare for a career or
transfer to a 4-year university. In 2020–2021, 142,583 CCC students transferred to the UUC,
CSU, or a private university (CCCCO, 2022). Nearly 51% of all CSU graduates and 29% of UC
system graduates begin their higher education at a CCC (CCCCO, 2022). In 2021–2022, 147,465
students earned a certificate, degree, or credential (CCCCO, 2022). In terms of ROI, for every
dollar invested in California’s Community Colleges in FY 2018-19, Californians will receive
$11.70 in return for as long as the 2018–2019 students remain active in the state workforce
(CCCCO, 2022). The mission of CCCs is investment worthy from an economic mobility,
workforce development, and diversity, equity, and inclusion perspective. However, the
philanthropic support that the system attracts is in need of important intervention strategies to
improve its current state.
This mixed-methods dissertation examined the factors influencing fundraising success for
CCCFs, focusing on KMO aspects. Through a quantitative survey of IRFs, document analysis,
and interviews with high-performing college foundations, this study provides a comprehensive
system baseline of the current state of CCCFs. This study drew upon established frameworks,
specifically Clark and Estes’ (2008) KMO gap analysis and Eccles and Wigfield’s (2002) EVT,
to structure the study and provide theoretical underpinnings. This study identified knowledge
factors such as declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge alongside adaptable leadership
and sheds light on the need for experience and leadership skills in fundraising success. Similarly,
113
this study recognized motivational factors like self-regulation and goal setting, highlighting the
significance of personal drive and strategic planning in achieving philanthropic goals. Lastly, this
study affirmed gaps in organizational factors such as training needs in navigating complex
political environments and investments in human capital, underscoring the systemic challenges
that community college foundations face in fundraising. The strong correlation between
organizational assets and staff size with fundraising effectiveness emphasizes the role of
resources and capacity in achieving success.
The recommendations derived from the study include enhancing organizational capacity,
establishing baseline metrics, developing research-based professional development programs,
offering actionable steps to address the identified challenges, and improving fundraising
outcomes. Moreover, integrating the new world Kirkpatrick model (NWKM) as an evaluation
method underscores the holistic approach needed to drive meaningful change in KMO factors.
Lastly, incorporating self-efficacy as a driving force behind individual commitment and effort
aligns well with the broader themes of the study, emphasizing personal belief in achieving
fundraising goals. Overall, this dissertation provides insights and practical recommendations for
enhancing fundraising effectiveness in California’s community college foundations, ultimately
contributing to the support and success of two million students statewide. On June 20, 2024, I
had the opportunity to share this study's findings and recommendations with the NCCCF board
of directors. This request was timely, as the board embarked on strategic planning activities. The
entire presentation is in Appendix G.
Finding 1: Knowledge and Skills
Results indicated that the highest-performing foundations have factual, conceptual, and
declarative fundraising knowledge and the skills to navigate the highly political and complex
114
community college system (Bergstrom, 2015; Razo, 2022). The NCCCF is developing more
expansive opportunities for fundraising practitioners, and these recommendations support the
network’s strategic priorities to support its members with more profound research-based learning
opportunities. This finding aligns with the literature on community college foundation
fundraising (Bergstrom, 2015; FCCC, 2012; Razo, 2022).
Recommendation 1
Using the NWKM (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant, and time-bound (SMART) goals, and the Kellogg Foundation logic model (Appendix
H), Recommendation 1 is to create a systemwide professional development program based on
research from experts in the field. The professional development curriculum will teach
procedural, declarative, and conceptual knowledge factors involved in fundraising best practices
in the high-performing foundations in addition to those identified in the literature review. Also,
this study found that nine out of 10 highest-performing foundations indicated that navigating the
community college governance model is a knowledge barrier and an essential factor to succeed
in community college fundraising. Thus, the curriculum will include this component.
Discussion
This study’s results call for a systemwide fundraiser’s professional development program
(FPDP) to support fundraising practitioners in reaching mastery through knowledge, skills, and
job aids (Clark & Estes, 2008). Managing the implementation of the FPDP entails using the
SMART goal-setting mechanism, and the evaluation method will be the NWKM (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The FPDP model incorporates an evaluation component to ensure short-term
and long-term indicators provide goal-setting metrics for decision makers. These metrics help
practitioners increase their motivation, and they help executive management make fiscal
115
allocation and investment decisions in the progression of professional performance and growth
of community college fundraising professionals.
Key Stakeholder Group: Network for California Community College Foundations
A key stakeholder identified is the members of the NCCCF; this group is the largest
membership of community college foundation practitioners, with over half of the state’s
community colleges represented (NCCCF, 2023). Buy-in and support from this stakeholder will
enable all NCCCF members to access the fundraising academy. The impact of a research-based
fundraising professional development program is scalable by engaging a statewide stakeholder,
namely, the NCCCF.
Implementation: SMART Goals Using the New World Kirkpatrick Model
The SMART goal is to develop, implement, and evaluate a new community college
fundraising professional development program. The program will use the NWKM and SMART
goals to guide this strategy to increase knowledge for community college fundraising
practitioners. Level 4 in the NWKM is results. The results expected from the FPDP are to
enhance fundraising professionals’ knowledge and support through training sessions in a
sequence that will build upon one another to establish metacognitive, self-efficacy, motivation,
organizational, procedural, and technical knowledge of fundraising principles and practices that
will benefit the community college they serve and the lives of the students they serve. PostFPDP, in the 6, 12, and 24 months, the participants will submit a survey with results metrics.
These metrics will include increased fundraising activity and outcomes such as developing a new
strategic alignment (with the college) development plan, increased donor attainment and
retention, increased proposals submitted and donor contacts, annual and endowment giving, and
116
overall asset growth. Table 12 illustrates the metrics and outcomes that the FPDP aims to
achieve.
Table 12
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Data collection methods
External outcomes
Increase revenue for each
participant college.
Philanthropic revenue will increase
at each participant college by a
minimum of 5% after 1 year of
completion.
Collect data from candid and
IRS 990s to capture
performance metrics.
Self-reporting survey for all
participants
Launch the fundraising
professional development
program in August of
2025.
Thirty percent of all community
college foundations in the state
will enroll in the fundraising.
PDP (30) practitioners enrolled
Collect enrollment, persistence,
and completion data of all
participants.
Enrollment and completion
data from NCCCF
Increased donor contacts for
each participant’s college
Donor contacts will increase by
20% at each participant’s
college each year.
Collect data on donor contacts
and critical behaviors and
activity through a survey
from participants.
Internal outcomes
Increase efforts to support
fundraising success at the
community college level.
Dollars invested in professional
development program
NSF budget comparative
analysis prior to and postimplementation of the
fundraising professional
development program
Increase the knowledge and
mastery of community
college fundraising
practitioners.
Number of practitioners who
completed the NCCCF
fundraising professional
development program
NCCCF data of program
enrollment and completers
Increase the number of
NCCCF members who
apply and receive the
national certification for
fundraising executives.
The number of practitioners
enrolled who had CFRE
credentials before the PDP
NCCCF fundraising PDP
enrollment questionnaire
The number of practitioners who
obtained their CFRE after the
fundraising PDP
Twelve to 24 months post-PDP
survey on the same
participants
Create a curriculum with
field experts and researchbased content with the
Review and approve the
curriculum within 12 months.
Survey to collect feedback and
input from the NCCCF board
and staff as a beta test before
the public release of the
117
Outcome Metrics Data collection methods
support of the NCCCF
board.
professional development
program
118
Level 3: NWKM Level 3 Critical Behaviors
The Kirkpatrick model’s Level 3 emphasizes what learners are supposed to demonstrate
as a result of partaking in specific training, and it provides accountability for expressing several
critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In this scenario, the selected stakeholder is
the NCCCF due to their prime access and reach among community college fundraising
practitioners. Table 13 describes the critical behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing for
evaluating the community college fundraising practitioners. Approximately 3 months posttraining, community college professional fundraisers that have completed the community college
fundraising FPDP will complete a survey with questions on behavioral changes. These questions
could include target areas such as increased donor visits, interactions, written proposals, and
contacts with current and prospective donors. It could also measure continued training and
determine if the practitioner has engaged in training the trainer’s activities to increase
accountability and motivation. Table 13 depicts critical behavior changes that this
recommendation aims to achieve.
119
Table 13
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation of Community College
Fundraising Practitioners
Critical behavior Metrics Data collection
methods
Timing
Critical Behavior 1:
increased
knowledge and
motivation of
practitioners to
implement
fundraising best
practices, proven
successful and
evidence-based
strategies used in
higher education.
Number of FPDP
sessions and
training hours
completed
Use coaching,
webinars, or an
LMS to track
sessions completed
and the number of
hours spent on
asynchronous and
synchronous
activities.
After the 3-month
FPDP
Critical Behavior 2:
increased
investment in
professional
development for
fundraising from
community college
foundations for
their employees.
Comparative
analysis: year-byyear spending on
professional
development.
Participant survey At 90 days after
completion
Critical Behavior 3:
increase the
number of
community
colleges who join
the network.
Number of NCCCF
members
NCCCF membership
data
A year after the first
FPDP
120
Required Drivers
An additional critical factor in Kirkpatrick’s model is the required drivers, described as
processes and systems that support and incentivize, monitor, and reward the enacted
Kirkpatrick’s Level 3 behaviors through accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table
14 emphasizes the reinforcing methods related to KMO activities necessary to reinforce and
support the intended outcomes for the NCCCF community college fundraising practitioners. On
the far right, the reinforcing required drivers connect to the critical behaviors in Table 13.
Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors of Community College Fundraising
Practitioners
Methods Timing Critical behaviors
supported
Reinforcing (K-related)
Create quizzes to reinforce the knowledge
acquired after each session.
Ongoing 1 and 2
Create a private social media group to
continue sharing resources, knowledge,
tips and tools, research, and best practices
with the cohort.
Ongoing 1–3
Create practice exercises for the participants
during the sessions to apply knowledge to
their context and real-life situations.
During the FPDP 1–3
Encouraging (M-related)
Create a mentoring connection with another
attendee to provide peer-to-peer
implementation support of knowledge
acquired in the FPDP.
Quarterly,
implemented in
2023–2024
1–3
Create a group mentoring program with the
board of directors and other experienced
121
Methods Timing Critical behaviors
supported
practitioners to engage with small groups
and serve as coaches.
Share the successes of colleagues who have
improved their fundraising practices.
Ongoing, quarterly 1–3
Rewarding (M-related)
Write letters of commendation to participants
that meet or exceed the metrics stated
above.
Annually 1–3
Create a digital badge and connect it to
LinkedIn for completers of the program.
Feature the successes of the participants
and the difference the dollars raised are
making at their college districts.
Create an endowment fund to support CFRE
certification exams for participants.
Ongoing 1 and 2
Monitoring (O-related)
Surveys will provide data and metrics for
participants annually.
Annually 2 and 3
Create a statewide dashboard to track goals
and metrics, such as dollars invested in
professional development, the number of
practitioners who completed the FPDP, the
number of participants who received
certifications, and dollars raised by
community colleges in the state.
Annually 2 and 3
Organizational Support
A statewide and comprehensive approach to increasing the KMO capacity of CCC
fundraising practitioners through the NCCCF will create intentional accountability for this work.
Several factors create a substantial nexus in accountability and broad awareness by mobilizing
122
and engaging the network’s board of directors, many of whom are experienced and current
fundraising practitioners. The visibility of the statewide platform allows for an accountability
dashboard that will be available to all community colleges in the state. The dashboard will report
metrics and outcomes annually and reinforce activities and methods such as systemwide
recognition for practitioners who complete the fundraising FPDP and who achieve the highest
level of certification in the sector. Additionally, the dashboard will help monitor, evaluate, and
iterate the activities and the goals accordingly. The results and accountability measures will serve
as tools for the NCCCF board to make informed decisions for future iterations of the
professional development training strategies.
Level 2: Learning Goals
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) defined the Level 2 learning level as the extent to
which participants acquire the desired knowledge, skills, attitude, self-confidence, and
dedication. Bloom’s taxonomy employs a framework that illustrates the progression from
concrete to abstract knowledge by linking measurable verbs to learning objectives as evidence of
learning (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Contextualizing the NCCCF Institute, the list below
lists the learning objectives the learner must follow to demonstrate program comprehension.
Program Learning Goals
1. Learning and applying: Ethics and purpose of professional fundraising.
2. Learning and applying: Collaboration and innovation in a participatory governance
environment.
3. Learning and applying the role of the board in fundraising: Engagement and training
of the board.
4. Developing a fundraising plan
123
a. The donor cultivation cycle
b. Stewardship, donor retention
c. Preparing and executing the ask
5. Learning and applying: Metrics and benchmarking in fundraising, accountability.
6. Learning and applying: Marketing and communicating – mission and vision.
7. Reviewing the philanthropic landscape in systems, technology, and data.
8. Launching comprehensive capital campaigns.
9. Financial sustainability, organizational structure, and budgets.
Participants will submit pre– and post–assessments to assist in measuring the continuous
improvement of the FPDP. Participants will use a rating scale with 1 being strongly disagree and
5 being strongly agree. Participants will submit learning evaluations to assess the initial
knowledge transfer and adjust the program as needed. Participants will complete the assessments
via email using Survey Monkey or Google Suite. A working team will review the data, and the
FPDP will be adjusted annually.
124
Table 15
Pre-assessment Survey
Question Strongly disagree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
I can clearly articulate the professional
fundraiser code of ethics.
I know the donor cultivation cycle and
levels of the process.
I know how to develop a campaign for
my college/multi-college district.
I know the board’s role relates to
governance and generative strategic
and fiscal responsibilities.
I can navigate the CCC system’s
participatory governance model
successfully.
Table 16
Post-assessment Survey
Question Strongly disagree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
I can clearly articulate the professional
fundraiser code of ethics.
I know the donor cultivation cycle and
levels of the process.
I know how to develop a campaign for
my college/multi-college district.
I know the board’s role relates to
governance and generative strategic
and fiscal responsibilities.
I can navigate the CCC system’s
participatory governance model
successfully.
125
Program Description
The rationale for creating the FPDP stems from the quantitative and qualitative data and
the literature review related to the topic of best practices for community college foundations in
California, the most extensive higher education system in the nation. This study found a need to
create an FPDP to support fundraising practitioners’ professional development. To achieve these
systemwide learning goals, the recommended FPDP program will focus on establishing a system
and culture of evidence-based learning and accountability through peer-to-peer learning,
executive modeling, supporting and recognizing professional growth and accomplishment,
protecting time for learning, using failure as an opportunity to learn, and continuous
improvement (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The target population of this FPDP is the
philanthropic practitioners currently employed by the CCCFs. The FPDP aims to present topics
relevant to foundation professionals at the management or senior management level. The FPDP
is a year-round program with 90-minute synchronous roundtables, lectures, and workshops
followed by a second monthly asynchronous exercise. The trainers will be experts with
demonstrated mastery in the topic area. Each session will have an introduction that explains its
importance and practical relevance in the field to contextualize the training material as much as
possible to motivate learning and engagement (the why). The sessions will be interactive, with
intentional opportunities to apply the topic and session information to real-world examples.
After each session, there will be a goal-setting portion, which will include setting one
SMART goal related to the training topic. All materials, research, handouts, presentations, and
survey links will be available in a participant portal hosted by NCCCF and accessible to
participants with their member credentials. The recording will be available for participants who
cannot attend the session, and a brief quiz will validate their second-level learning (Kirkpatrick
126
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). If participants complete all sessions, they will receive an FPDP completion
digital badge and a certificate of completion. During the FPDP, monthly, the participants will
receive an email with a refresher video of encouragement reminding them to continue their
progress and asking them to submit their metrics to the data collection dashboard. An annual
refresher training will be available to all participants, and a reunion of all alumni can support
networking through the annual CASE Community College Conference.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) discussed the significance of evaluating Level 2
(learning) via a series of learning components. They provided components such as “I know it”
(knowledge); “I can do it immediately,” “I believe it will be worthwhile to complete the task”
(attitude); “I believe I can complete the task at work” (confidence); and “I will complete the task
at work” (commitment). Table 17 provides an overview of the methods or activities used to
achieve the critical learning components and the dates on which the NCCCF FPDP expects to
share them publicly.
Table 17
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Methods or activities
Timing
Declarative knowledge: “I know it.”
I can clearly articulate the professional fundraiser
code of ethics through session exercise activity–
quiz.
During session
I know the donor cultivation cycle and levels of the
process– through the session’s homeworkidentifying a donor they want to cultivate and
creating a plan for this donor.
A week after the session
I know how to develop a campaign for my
college/multi-college district– through session
A week after the session
127
Methods or activities
Timing
homework– identify a college priority and use it as
a hypothetical campaign to develop.
I know the board’s role in governance and generative
strategic and fiscal responsibilities, such as
discussion and reporting during break out.
During session
Procedural skills: “I can do it right now.”
I can solicit a philanthropist to support the mission
and vision of the college/district.
At the end of the FPDP, last session,
measuring throughout the next 12
months after the last session
I can launch a campaign for the college/district. At the end of the FPDP, last session,
measuring throughout the next 12
months after the last session
I can work effectively with the board of directors to
advance the organization’s mission.
At the end of the FPDP, last session,
measuring throughout the next 12
months after the last session
I can provide responsible stewardship of the funds
and trust that the funder has bestowed on my role.
At the end of the FPDP, last session,
measuring throughout the next 12
months after the last session
I can write a case for support for my college/district. At the end of the FPDP, measuring
throughout the next 12 months
after the last session
Attitude: “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Commitment to participate During FPDP, observation by the
instructor
Completion of program Post-FPDP
Response to surveys, and completion of activities
during and after sessions.
During sessions and post-FPDP
completion
Confidence: “I think I can do it on the job.”
Pre and post-test assessment on the level of
confidence.
Before and after FPDP
Confidence checks through discussions with peers
during breakouts.
During sessions
Survey to college president’s pre and post Post-completion
Commitment: “I will do it on the job.”
Survey to managers on participant’s implementation
of the knowledge acquired.
Post-completion of FPDP
Submission of SMART goals after each session A week after each session
128
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 evaluates the learners’ immediate reaction to the training and the extent to which
they found it engaging, relevant, and favorable (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) distinctly mention relevance as the most essential aspect of Level 1
(learning) because it determines whether participants can apply the training to their daily work.
Table 18 includes the methods NCCCF will use to assess participant engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction with the NCCCF FPDP.
Table 18
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods or tools Timing
Engagement
Number of members of the NCCCF (current
members)
Prior to launching the FPDP
Number of colleges who are not members
(potential members)
Prior to launching the FPDP
Number of FPDP participants During the FPDP
Several FPDP participants who completed all
sessions received certificates and digital
badges.
Post-FPDP, 2 weeks
Number of survey respondents Post-FPDP, 2 weeks
Course evaluation (quantitative score and
qualitative feedback comments)
Each session and 2 weeks after the
completion of the FPDP
Relevance
Course evaluation (quantitative score and
qualitative feedback comments)
Each session
Monthly pulse checks measure whether “the
training content is useful and applicable to my
goals and performance.”
Monthly, ongoing for 1 year
Customer satisfaction
Number of certificates and digital badges issued
for completion
At the end of the FPDP, 2 weeks later
Number of participants in the FPDP who
increased their baseline metrics
A year post-FPDP
129
Evaluation Tools to Be Implemented Immediately Following Each Session
The NCCCF FPDP participants will receive support through the NCCCF listserv and the
community college’s LMS system for their FPDP course content. Before the first session, the
FPDP participants will complete a pre-FPDP questionnaire to assess their pre-knowledge and
establish a baseline. After the FPDP, participants will receive a post-knowledge questionnaire
along with an overall evaluation survey.
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
After completing the FPDP, monthly pulse check emails will capture participants’
progress and continue tracking their progress toward their SMART goals. The NCCCF List will
support sharing accomplishments systemwide and a continued commitment to share metrics,
successes, and new learnings through the data dashboard. Members of the FPDP will receive a
certificate of completion and a digital badge for their email signatures or professional social
media platforms. Table 19 illustrates the monthly pulse check questionnaire.
130
Table 19
Monthly Pulse Checks
Question Strongly disagree Strongly agree
1 2 3 4 5
I have made three donor
contacts a week.
I have implemented 1–2
strategies I learned in
the FPDP.
I secured 1–2 gifts this
month.
I was able to thank 5–10
donors per month
meaningfully.
I engaged 1–3 board
members in thanking,
asking, or contributing
themselves to the
college or district.
Finding 2: Goal Setting, Expectancy, Value, and Motivation
Community college foundations in California need a current systemwide fundraising
tracking mechanism to report IRFs’ fundraising success. The significance of this assertion is that
college presidents, policymakers, and philanthropists have no way of quantifying the baseline
fundraising or progress of CCCFs. As Clark and Estes (2008) stated, to find the gaps, you need
to identify the current state, codify the desired state, and identify solutions to close gaps between
the current state and the desired state. Therefore, I recommend the development of a statewide
dashboard to report on the state’s baseline of philanthropic support for community colleges.
Local colleges can adopt the dashboard and create localized dashboards using similar metrics.
Figure 3 presents a sample dashboard.
131
Figure 3
Internal Dashboard: Individual Foundations
Recommendation 2
Recommendation 2 is to benchmark systemwide goals using scorecards based on staffing
and institutional demographics and to create systemwide dashboards and key performance
indicators to increase the expected value of philanthropic foundations to community colleges. I
recommend that community colleges in California establish an annual data collection process to
create an advancement and philanthropy scorecard. Figure 4 presents a sample statewide
dashboard. Systemwide data provides opportunities to set goals, measure progress, identify needs
and trends, and improve data-informed decision making. This study found that the higher-
132
performing foundations had strong goal-setting practices that varied from strategic plans, annual
action plans, 5-year fundraising plans, visioning sessions, and budget planning sessions.
Therefore, to address this need and close this data, motivational and expectancy-value gap, the
professional development program previously discussed in Finding and Recommendation l
includes goal setting aligned to the college’s strategic priorities components and benchmarking
high-performing peer institutions, adding to work by Boodrookas (2023).
Figure 4
External Dashboard: Systemwide
133
Discussion on Goal Setting, Benchmarking, Data Collection and Reporting
The CCC system does not report the advancement and philanthropic performance of its
IRFs. Data collection and metrics provide the basis for benchmarking practices; therefore, I am
recommending that the NCCCF work to collect data annually to improve data-informed
practices, goal setting, and benchmarking systemwide.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), benchmarking aids in achieving organizational
performance and setting organizational goals. Benchmarking offers numerous benefits to
organizations, according to Chandra Sekhar (2011), including adopting best practices from other
companies, which can significantly reduce costs and save time compared to developing these
practices in-house. Benchmarking also facilitates the implementation of emerging changes and
advanced technological advancements that result from industry-wide shifts (Chandra Sekhar,
2011). Moreover, it can help bridge competitive disparities between one’s organization and rival
firms (Chandra Sekhar, 2011; Clark & Estes, 2008). By leveraging external models,
organizational leaders can formulate strategic goals and objectives to enhance organizational
activities and processes (Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally, benchmarking can inspire a move away
from entrenched practices, prompting the organization to embrace innovative approaches and
facilitating organizational learning by integrating best practices and processes (Chandra Sekhar,
2011; Clark & Estes, 2008).
To further improve the use of data to inform continuous improvement strategies, I
recommend that the NCCCF collect data on the NWKM level 4 goals of the FPDP with external
and internal performance measures. The external measures can be collected through an annual
survey or via a review of IRS 990 forms. I recommend that the NCCCF share the aggregate
compilation of the dashboard data publicly (see Table 6) without the individual names of
134
colleges. For the internal data analysis, the participant’s progress surveys will measure critical
behavior changes and key performance indicators such as donor contacts, number of gifts,
number of continued donors, number of new donors, number of planned gifts secured, total
dollars raised, and new endowments established. These metrics are intended to support each
college’s data-informed strategy development and program review and planning efforts.
Additionally, Figures 3 and 4 provide the components of the recommended dashboards. An
internal dashboard for individual college foundations (Figure 3) and one for external reports for
the entire system are proposed (Figures 3 and 4). The FPDP dashboard will provide a progress
report on Level 4 of the NWKM model (Figure 5).
Figure 5
FC Fundraising Professional Development Program Dashboard
135
Finding 3: Positive Return On Investment
Community colleges provide varied levels of institutional support to their foundations.
On average, 30% of the foundation’s operational support comes from the college institution, and
70% comes from earned income, endowment payouts, and fundraising efforts of the college
foundations. Seventy-eight percent of foundations operate with five or fewer full-time
employees, and 19% have one or less than one full-time employee.
Discussion of Cost-Benefit Analysis: Foundation Staffing
The staffing of IRFs for CCCs is small, with 78% of foundations operating with five FTE
staff or less, according to this study’s findings. To further validate this assertion, I refer to the
literature review. The 2012 statewide CCCF survey found that 38% of foundations operated with
one FTE or fewer; 30% with one, two, or three; 15% with three, four, or five; 15% with six to
10; and 2% with 10 or more. This confirmed that the CCCFs’ staffing is less than the nationwide
average of five FTEs (CASE, 2015). Furthermore, the highest-performing foundations identified
in this study had a mean staff of six FTEs compared to the remaining institutions, with a staff of
two FTEs. According to CASE (2015), community college IRFs have demonstrated good
efficiencies and contributions in fundraising while leveraging volunteers and maintaining low
operational costs. The study points to the excellent volunteer support provided to the colleges
through board membership. Although the staff is small, the large boards, with an average of 24
members, are a significant source of expertise and talent for the foundations.
This study found strong correlations between staff size and fundraising effectiveness
using a per full-time student fundraising ratio. For example, three foundations, or 7% of the
respondents with the largest reported staff, had 10–14 employees and raised 40.22% of the total
amount all 42 respondents raised. This finding aligns with literature from the CASE 2015
136
National Community College Survey, where they found that even though foundations had small
staffs, they had a positive ROI of 3:1. Furthermore, the study of the FCCC in 2012 found that
foundations with more staff raised more funds compared to those with smaller teams. This
mixed-methods study found a strong correlation between FTE and total fundraising per student,
as illustrated in Tables 5 and 11. This study found that, in aggregate, CCCFs have an ROI of
350%, as illustrated in Table 20. This finding is similar to the CASE (2015) survey findings.
Table 20
Return on Investment for Foundations
Return on investment for all foundations
Total operating costs including salaries (n = 38) $24,707,759
Total fundraising income (n = 38) $111,180,164
Return on investment/efficiency ratio 350%
137
Because correlation does not prove causation, it is essential to note that human capital
investments in staff are not the only factor contributing to success; however, the data reveal that
there is a strong correlation between total staff and total raised per FTE and the qualitative data
confirmed this finding, according to 100% of interviewees, the top challenge for their
organizations is staffing capacity to fulfill their mission. Clark and Estes (2008) posited that
integrating KMO solutions can help close performance gaps. Therefore, integrating a researchbased fundraising professional development program, increased goal-setting practices, and selfregulation practices to boost motivation, expectancy, and value of fundraising efforts and
increase staff capacity can enhance the fundraising effectiveness of CCCs.
Recommendation 3
This study provides three cost-benefit analysis scenarios using H. M. Levin’s (1983) and
Picus’s (1994) ingredients methods. H. M. Levin and McEwan (2001) emphasized reliability and
validity when selecting efficacy measures. Educational alternatives often produce multiple
outcomes, necessitating multiple measures of effectiveness. Community colleges are prominent
in higher education through their multiple missions, open acceptance policy, and characteristics
that lift equity concerns (Baker, 2017; Fuller & Raman, 2022; Razo, 2022; Rios-Aguilar & DeilAmen, 2019). Titus et al. (2021) asserted that community colleges should continue to pursue
research-based practices for non-traditional and marginalized students to support equitable
outcomes, understanding that those practices may require investment by colleges.
Discussion
Building upon scholarly research on the efficiency of community colleges Titus et al.
(2021) and the case made for increased funding for these community colleges (Fuller & Raman,
2022; Rios-Aguilar & Deil-Amen, 2019; Yuen, 2020), this analysis focuses on solutions to
138
increase revenue for community colleges by analyzing three alternative solutions to increasing
philanthropic support for community colleges in California. These scenarios can assist
philanthropy leaders in opening conversations with their key stakeholders, board of directors,
lead philanthropists, and policymakers at the local and statewide level to increase financial
investments to raise philanthropic support for community colleges and their students. The costbenefit analysis applies to the staff size analysis group in Table 11. I make three cost-benefit
analysis scenarios using a hypothetical approach for a foundation that wants to move from one
staff to three, from three staff to five, and from six staff to 10. The Cost-Benefit analysis can be
helpful as community college leaders engage in evaluating the potential cost of building out their
foundations. Understanding that community colleges have competing and multiple gaps in
funding for their operations (Rios-Aguilar & Deil-Amen, 2019; Yuen, 2020), I recommend a
private-public partnership approach to fund the operational funding needs of community college
foundations.
Integrating KMO solutions can close gaps in CCCs’ philanthropic success. Clark and
Estes (2008) posited that integrated solutions provide a holistic approach and have a greater
probability of success than siloed solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008). Recommendation 3 focuses
on closing the current organizational capacity gaps of the CCCFs.
Cost-Benefit Analysis to Support Increased Staffing for California Community College
Foundations
The third recommendation aims to contribute to the research on the topic of CCC
philanthropic support by providing a Cost-Benefit analysis using cost-benefit as the method to
evaluate (H. M. Levin & García, 2018; Monk, 1993; Picus, 1994) the costs and benefits of
operating foundation offices of various staff sizes. The intention is that this research will provide
139
a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of CCCF offices to inform decision makers, boards of trustees,
policymakers, the CCCCO, and the chancellor and presidents of community college districts to
enhance organizational capacity to improve philanthropic gifts benefiting the CCC system and its
students. The scenarios presented below aim to provide data on the possible revenue increases
through capacity expansion of IRFs to support scholarships, new facilities, programs, and
important priorities for community colleges by increasing levels of staffing and organizational
infrastructure. The ultimate motivation is for the CCC system to increase philanthropic support
as an alternative source of revenue for the community college mission. The potential impact of
these scenarios on the community college system and its students is significant, underscoring the
urgency of this issue. According to the 2023 California-wide foundation survey, by and large, the
foundations have small teams, and 78% are staffed by fewer than five FTE. In some cases, a
part-time employee runs the foundation, or duties are assigned to a person with another job at the
institution (NCCCF, 2023). To aid in this analysis, I adapted components from cost-effectiveness
models to identify the ingredients necessary for all three scenarios. See Table 21, which
describes three Cost-Effectiveness models and their approaches to account for costs and mitigate
risks of overstating benefits, considered for Recommendation 3.
140
Table 21
Models of Cost-Effectiveness Studies
Name Description of the model
H. M. Levin (1983) Identify the ingredients and attach a value to them.
Use market prices to assign values.
Use shadow prices when market prices are not available.
Use discounted prices if the alternative affects multiple
years.
Monk (1993) Use a hierarchy that starts with ingredients or inputs such
as fundraising staff.
Configure input and long-term social and economic
outcomes of fundraising at a community college in the
next levels of the hierarchy.
Include a factor in the hierarchies to adjust the
ingredients.
Anticipate possible adjustments in cost for geographical
and timing differences.
Picus (1994) Start with H. M. Levin’s model.
Identify overstatement of benefits and make adjustments.
Use a three-dimensional matrix to identify and estimate
expenditures.
Scenario 1 Scope, Strengths, and Weaknesses
The first scenario presented is a strategic approach to address minimal staff support to
manage an early-stage active foundation office. These include an ED, a full-time trained and
experienced fundraiser, and an administrative coordinator with donor data entry and
administrative support skills. These three positions are fundamental to a small college foundation
in the early stages of its active life. While many foundations were established in the 1980s (Razo,
2022), the 2023 NCCCF survey results demonstrate that foundations have experienced slow
growth, as 78% of the respondent foundations (n = 42) operate with five or fewer staff members.
Scenario 1 assumes a modest investment in fundraising staff, administration, and basic
operational costs, personnel, financial systems, technology, fundraising, and facilities. This
141
scenario would change the current situation for a significant number of foundations. However,
the intervention would be limited due to its small scope of investing in 3 FTE staff per college
foundation. This intervention would affect 19% of the foundations in California (NCCCF, 2023)
that currently operate with one or less FTE.
The cost of personnel for this size of foundation is, on average, $292,536 per year,
adjusted at 5% annually, considering the rate of inflation that will likely impact salary increases
and benefits. Salaries and benefits account for over half of the total costs to raise funds for a
community college foundation. The operational costs are $250,200 of the total costs to run a
small-sized college foundation. The baseline staff data is taken from the 2023 survey for CCCFs,
and the projections for benefits are also based on the most current fundraising data from the 2023
survey for CCCFs. The average cost of a foundation position is calculated at $97,152, with the
low salaries at $56,000 and the high salaries at $175,000; the average salary is used. The average
salary calculation is used in each scenario herein.
Disadvantages to Scenario 1 are significant organizational gaps that need to be mitigated.
For example, this scenario lacks a financial accounting manager to monitor nonprofit financial
accounting compliance, expansive professional development, human resource support, and
sophisticated systems in donor management systems critical to fiscal and organizational
functions. In addition, this scenario limits the foundation’s capacity to implement best-practice
fundraising strategies, such as cultivating planned giving with donors and fully stewarding their
high net-worth donors or alumni, which requires time and staff resources (CASE, 2015). The
advantage is that the institutions’ total investment is low relative to its benefits, and it may offer
a starting point that can be expanded upon in the future.
142
Each of the scenarios has a 10-year projection of the net present value (NPV) of the cost
of all the ingredients (H. M. Levin, 1983). In this scenario, the costs at NPV are $6,181,486. The
total benefits (H. M. Levin, 1983; Picus, 1994) are the total dollars raised by the institutionally
related foundation calculated to be $15,584,112. This study considered including intangible and
tangible benefits and costs; however, there is currently no data on intangible benefits. Therefore,
the calculation includes only tangible benefits. The tangible and possible intangible benefits that
could be considered in the future are listed in Table 22. It is worth noting that while there is no
data on intangible benefits, there is a need to collect this data at scale to codify the total benefits
of building organizational capacity for CCCFs. In summary, the benefit-to-cost ratio of Scenario
1 is 2.521. These long-term benefits projections can be a source of optimism about the future
financial opportunities of the community college system.
Table 22
Ten-Year Investment Returns per Foundation by Scenario at Net Present Value
Per college foundation Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Costs at NPV 4,967,076 9,567,176 15,123,619
Tangible benefits at NPV 12,519,928 35,777,508 43,631,223
Intangible benefits No data No data No data
Benefit/cost ratio (B/C) 2.52 3.74 2.88
Net benefit at NPV (B – C) 7,552,852 26,210,332 28,507,604
143
Scenario 2 Scope, Strengths, and Weaknesses
The second scenario presented in this analysis affects 53% of the CCCFs that currently
operate with one to three FTE. The intervention is mid-level, with an investment in operational
costs to support a staff of six FTE. The cost of personnel for this size of foundation is, on
average, $487,560 per year, adjusted for inflation at 5% annually to account for increases in
salaries and benefits. A discount rate of 4% was applied to benefits and costs to account for the
time value of money. These staff positions expand upon Scenario 1: EDs, director of
philanthropy, senior development officer, annual fund coordinator, administrative coordinator,
and accounting manager. The operational costs are $575,787 accounting for over 50% of the
total costs to run a medium-sized college foundation. The baseline staff data comes from the
2023 survey for CCCFs, and the projections for benefits are based on the most current
fundraising data from the 2023 survey for CCCFs. The average cost of a foundation position is
$97,152, with $56,000 being the lowest and $175,000 being the average highest salary position.
The disadvantages to this scenario are that the investment required is substantial, and
campus leaders, trustees, and donors may consider the costs challenging to absorb. Another
disadvantage is similar to Scenario 1: organizational gaps that require mitigation of
organizational risks in fiduciary oversight, human resources services to onboard foundation staff,
and the need for sophisticated donor development systems to offer comprehensive philanthropic
support services with adequate staffing levels. As in Scenario 1, staff will be tasked with
multiple duties requiring varying skills, training, and expertise and will find themselves
attempting to fill the gaps as best they can (CASE, 2015). Several studies have mentioned
adequate staffing levels, pointing to this problem as a key challenge in achieving philanthropic
success for CCCFs (CASE, 2015; FCCC, 2012; NCCCF, 2023). The need for more staff limits
144
the opportunities to grow philanthropic support for community college foundations (CASE,
2015; FCCC, 2012; NCCCF, 2023). The advantage of this scenario is that the total investment
from the institutions is low relative to its benefits. This scenario is a 10-year projection of the
NPV of the cost of all the ingredients (H. M. Levin, 1983) calculated to be $11,891,347, and the
total benefits (H. M. Levin, 1983; Picus, 1994) are the total dollars raised by the IRF calculated
at NPV to be of $44,533,858. The benefit minus the cost results in a total positive benefit at an
NPV of $32,642,511. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 3.740, demonstrating a positive benefit-to-cost
investment.
Intangible Benefits
According to the CCCCO auxiliary manual of 2020, foundations are allowed to account
for tangible and intangible benefits to recognize the total value that each college foundation
provides to their college institution. Taking into account H. M. Levin’s (1983) ingredients
method and Picus’s (1994) recommendation to consider the overstatement of benefits, this study
takes a conservative approach to intangible benefits due to a lack of available data. The
documented examples of intangible benefits to college institutions are volunteer leadership, bond
campaign support in the form of volunteers who chair, fund, and galvanize support for bond
measure campaigns, managing philanthropic gifts for the college institution, building prestige
and brand recognition through endowments, and creating industry and community goodwill
through partnerships.
Currently, no data collection method captures the intangible benefits provided by the
CCCF IRFs at scale. I recommend that the CCCFs collect the intangible benefits as part of the
statewide data dashboard to codify the total benefits provided to community colleges by the
145
NCCCF. This can be done by using data from the commensurate return schedule as per the
guidance of the 2020 California community auxiliary organizational manual.
Scenario 3 Scope, Strengths, and Weaknesses
Scenario 3 presents an investment in a comprehensive development department with
infrastructure, technology, and adequate staffing levels to deliver philanthropic services for the
community college. This level of investment would change the status quo significantly, affecting
78% of community colleges in California. Currently, only 3% of college foundations in the state
have a staff of 10 or more. The intervention is high as it represents the cost to have a
comprehensive foundation office staffed with 10 FTE. The cost of personnel for this size
foundation is, on average, $975,120 per year adjusted for inflation at a discount rate of 4%,
which is a weighted discount rate. Additionally, a 5% increase for salaries and benefits was
applied to account for inflation and salary and benefit increases. The operational costs are
$657,287 of the total costs of running a college foundation in an advanced growth stage. The
baseline staff data is from the 2023 Survey for CCCFs, and the projections for benefits are from
the most current fundraising data from the 2023 Survey for CCCFs. The average cost of a
foundation position applied to this scenario is $97,152, with $56,000 being the lowest-paid
position and $175,000 being the highest salary. The total raised per year is adjusted at a 3%
increase to account for increased staff and fundraising experience. Finally, a 4% discount rate is
applied to benefits and costs to account for the time value of money.
Scenario 3 builds upon scenarios 1 and 2 and expands staff to address the limitations of
the lack of financial oversight, systems and technology, and adequate fundraising staff and
support staff. The positions included in this scenario include CEO/ED, director of philanthropy,
annual fund coordinator, marketing and events coordinator, administrative coordinator, database
146
manager, accounting manager, chief financial officer, accounting technician, funds for audits,
legal support, technology/customer relationship management, marketing, and funds to support
planned giving cultivation support and activities.
The disadvantages to this scenario are that the investment required is substantial, and
campus leaders, trustees, and donors may consider the costs challenging to absorb. Dissimilar to
scenarios 1 and 2, organizational gaps identified earlier are closed to increase the organizational
capacity of fiduciary oversight, human resources, professional development, and sophisticated
donor development systems to offer comprehensive philanthropic support services with adequate
staffing levels. Staff have distinct roles and can focus on areas of expertise that expand needed
organizational capacity (CASE, 2015; FCCC, 2012). Past studies have mentioned adequate
staffing levels, pointing to the problem as a key challenge in achieving philanthropic success for
CCCFs (CASE, 2015; FCCC, 2012; NCCCF, 2023). The need for more staff limits the
opportunities to grow philanthropic support for community college foundations (CASE, 2015;
FCCC, 2012; NCCCF, 2023). The advantage of this scenario is that the total investment from the
institution is low relative to its benefits. This scenario is a 10-year projection of the NPV of the
cost of all the ingredients (H. M. Levin, 1983) calculated to be $18,837,825, and the total
benefits (H. M. Levin, 1983; Picus, 1994) are the total dollars raised by the IRF calculated to be
$54,309,727 at NPV. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 2.885, demonstrating a positive benefit-to-cost.
The benefit-to-cost ratio for Scenario 3 is higher (2.885) compared to Scenario 1 (2.521) and
lower compared to Scenario 2 (3.741). Each scenario has its advantages and disadvantages,
which I will discuss below.
Even though the financial support is substantially more in Scenario 3, the CBA enabled
me to conclude that a larger staff may add more organizational capacity, technology, and
147
operational support. However, the benefit-to-cost ratio is less than in Scenario 2, signifying that
it it may be difficult to scale dollars raised as the foundations grow larger. One possible cause for
this is that as the organization grows, so does the infrastructure needed to support a larger
organization. This is an important observation for foundation leaders as they increase their
capacity and track organizational effectiveness and economies of scale.
Cost-Benefit Analysis
The method for examining this problem is cost-benefit, using H. M. Levin’s (1983) and
Picus’s (1994) approaches. H. M. Levin and McEwan (2001) emphasized reliability and validity
when selecting efficacy measures. Educational alternatives often produce multiple outcomes,
necessitating multiple measures of effectiveness. Community colleges are prominent in higher
education through their multiple missions, open acceptance policy, and characteristics that lift
equity concerns (Baker, 2017; Fuller & Raman, 2022; Razo, 2022). Titus et al. (2021) asserted
that community colleges should continue to pursue research-based practices for non-traditional
and marginalized students to support equitable outcomes, understanding that those practices may
require investment by colleges. Building upon scholarly research on the efficiency of community
colleges Titus et al. (2021) and the case made for increased funding for these community
colleges (Fuller & Raman, 2022; Yuen, 2020), this analysis focuses on scenarios to increase
revenue for community colleges by analyzing three alternative scenarios to increasing
philanthropic support for community colleges in California. This study identified and analyzed
the scenarios, presented the findings, and described the relevant tradeoffs.
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Each Scenario
H. M. Levin (1983) described the concept underpinning the ingredients method: every
intervention employs components with a value or price. H. M. Levin noted that it is possible to
148
compute the total cost of the intervention and the cost per unit of effectiveness by identifying the
ingredients and their costs. Because every intervention uses resources with valuable alternative
uses, H. M. Levin argued that devoting them to a particular activity forfeits the benefits of using
them for another purpose. These lost benefits represent the costs associated with pursuing a
specific intervention. H. M. Levin outlined the significance of the ingredients method in
accounting for all associated costs. He believes the ingredients procedure is a practical approach
to cost estimation. Under the ingredients method, H. M. Levin suggested identifying the
resources necessary for each intervention. An ingredient list for the three recommended
scenarios is in the appendix section. According to J. S. Levin (2000), the researcher must identify
all contributing factors to the observed effect. Levin also stated that when identifying the
intervention’s components, the researcher must be specific regarding the intervention’s scope.
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Scenario 1
Scenario 1 requires the least investment required from the institution. This scenario has a
benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.52. It is important to note, per H. M. Levin’s suggestion, to account for
all the ingredients and from Picus’s (1994) work to adjust for overstated benefits, that the total
approximate costs for a small three-person staff have other risks associated with having a low
number of staff running an auxiliary or independent organization that requires proper
stewardship of resources entrusted to the organization. This scenario is palatable as an
investment, and the analysis shows that its benefit to cost would be advantageous to college
foundations as a starting point for foundations that are part of the 19% of foundations in the state
currently operating with one FTE staff or fewer. Assumptions made in this scenario include the
total operational budget based on a list of assumed ingredients based on a meaningful sample of
high-performing college foundation budgets. Budget assumptions are that salaries absorb
149
approximately 54% of the entire budget, a 5% increase for salaries and benefits is applied to
account for inflation per year, and a discount rate of 4% is applied to each scenario to both
benefits and costs. A 3% increase in fundraising was applied to the benefit total per year to
account for the foundations’ longevity and increased capacity. The total cost for scenario one
over 10 years is $4,967,076 at NPV, and the tangible benefits assumed at the average raised by
the staff size category in the 2023 survey over 10 years is calculated at $12,519,928 with the
NPV benefit calculated at $7,552,852. This scenario has a positive benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.521.
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Scenario 2
Scenario 2 would significantly affect the current staffing capacity of foundations,
affecting 52% of foundations of CCCs that presently operate with three or fewer FTEs. The
intervention is moderate and requires an investment of five staff members. This scenario has a
3.740 benefit-to-cost ratio. The cost of personnel and operations for a foundation of this size is
approximately $9,567,176 over 10 years, adjusted with a weighted discount rate of 4% applied to
benefits and costs. Considering the rate of inflation, a 5% increase in salary was applied to each
year. Although the personnel costs are higher than in Scenario 1, this Scenario adds an
accounting manager to manage the financial aspects of the foundation, such as internal controls,
risk mitigation, and prudent management of the gifts, grants, and assets provided to the
foundation. Annual fundraising is projected to increase to $35.77 million at NPV over 10 years.
The benefit minus the cost is $26,210,332, resulting in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.74 showing
that it is an advantageous investment. It is important to note that beyond the greater financial
benefits over time, this scenario offers additional staff to mitigate oversight and management
risks for the organization, specifically in the financial fiduciary responsibility of the foundation.
150
Cost-Benefit Analysis for Scenario 3
The investment required for this scenario is substantial, and campus administrators,
trustees, and donors may need to use significant leadership, influence, and advocacy to absorb
the cost of this scenario. Dissimilar to Scenarios 1 and 2, fundamental organizational gaps are
closed to reduce risks in fiduciary oversight, human resources services to onboard foundation
staff, foundation board members, alumni, and other stakeholders. This scenario also increases
resources for sophisticated donor development technology systems to provide comprehensive
philanthropic support services with sufficient staffing levels. The IRFs will also have resources
to hire experts in their particular areas of mastery, such as planned gifts, major and mega gifts,
and corporate and foundation relations, enabling these highly trained and capable staff to apply
their knowledge for the organization’s benefit. Several studies have identified adequate staffing
levels as a significant obstacle to attaining philanthropic success for CCCFs (CASE, 2015;
FCCC, 2012; NCCCF, 2023). Community college foundations have fewer opportunities to
increase philanthropic support due to a lack of personnel (CASE, 2015; FCCC, 2012; NCCCF,
2023). While the investment is considerable over 10 years, this scenario has a substantial
financial benefit for the community college IRFs after all costs of the ingredients, calculating an
appropriate discount rate (4%), adding annual adjustments to salaries and benefits (5%) and
applying an increase to annual fundraising outcomes (3%).
This scenario has a 10-year projection of the NPV of the cost of all ingredients (H. M.
Levin, 1983), calculated to be $15,123,619, and the NPV of the total benefits $43,631,223 (H.
M. Levin, 1983; Picus, 1994), based on the total projected average dollars raised by the IRF
based on the 2023 Survey. The total NPV of the benefit is the benefit minus the cost, which is
projected to be $28,507,604. The benefit-to-cost ratio is positive at 2.558.
151
The benefit-to-cost ratio for Scenario 1 is 2.521. For Scenario 2, it is .3.740, and it is
2.885 for Scenario 3. In CBA, a higher ratio generally indicates that a scenario is more
advantageous, i.e., achieves greater benefits as compared to the costs of the intervention
(H. M. Levin & García, 2018). Based on the values listed, I conclude that Scenario 2 is the most
advantageous when only considering financial benefits. I conclude that Scenario 3 is the most
comprehensive in terms of risk mitigation and organization resources for larger financial gains
and long-term success for the colleges. However, Scenario 3 is the second most advantageous
when considering benefit-to-cost analysis. Scenario 1 is the least advantageous, yet it is still a
positive intervention as it relates to the costs-to-benefit ratio.
Some assumptions relevant to these calculations include benefits calculated using 2023
NCCCF survey data and total costs based on a list of assumed ingredients based on highperforming IRF financial information from the 2023 NCCCF survey. I made three assumptions
to conduct the CBA. First, a discount rate of 4% is applied to costs and benefits to account for
the time value of money. Second, a 5% increase is applied to salaries and benefits annually to
support employee retention, and a 3% increase is applied to fundraising per year to account for
the foundation employees’ increased capacity and experience gained over time. These
assumptions should be accounted for when interpreting the results, as they affect the reliability
and applicability of the cost-benefit values. These proposed scenarios provide options for
foundation leaders, CEOs, boards of trustees, and philanthropists when evaluating the costbenefit of a particular intervention to improve fundraising capacity for CCCFs and, ultimately, to
benefit millions of students in the CCC system.
152
Limitations and Delimitations
This section provides a brief explanation of the study’s limitations and weaknesses.
Limitations and weaknesses are threats to internal and external validity that can make a study
less valid. This study aimed to address concerns of validity to increase the applicability of the
study to the broader community college philanthropic field.
External Validity
External validity addresses the question of whether the results of a study are
generalizable to other participants, settings, measurements, interventions, and past or future
periods (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this context, external validity
refers to the extent to which the findings of this mixed-methods study on the fundraising success
of California’s community college foundations are generalizable to other settings or populations
with similar characteristics. To this end, this study included a sample of community colleges
representative of many sizes, locations, and demographics to encompass a broader spectrum of
fundraising experiences. Moreover, this study institutes rigorous data collection methods and
well-defined research protocols to mitigate biases and expand the applicability of the study to
similar contexts beyond the original investigation’s scope. Furthermore, to see duplicate results
emerge, this study includes a document analysis of two surveys on the same topic with different
samples and settings. This study builds upon the 2012 FCCC survey conducted on the same topic
and the 2023 NCCCF survey.
Internal Validity
To mitigate internal validity issues, this study sampled all participants to ensure they
represent the study population. As of March 2023, there were 101 formally established
foundations, with 66 members of the NCCCF (NCCCF, 2023). The study includes 100% of the
153
population and has received close to 50% of foundations registered in the state that responded to
the survey, supporting external and internal validity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). In addition, this study implemented exacting research protocols by adhering to specific
procedures during the study so as not to introduce unintended effects, for instance, by doing
things differently with one group of participants than another. Additionally, this study’s
limitation is that it restricts the population to fundraising professionals in leadership roles at the
community college IRFs. Given that the focus is on the foundation’s leadership, the study did not
include the full perspective of the college’s CEO or president. Finally, the study was descriptive
and correlational and thus, causal inferences should not be assumed in light of dictum correlation
does not prove causation. Further, the relationship between staff size and funding is probably bidirectional.
Recommendations for Future Research
To improve awareness among the CEOs/presidents of these community college
institutions, scholars must conduct in-depth, further research on the situated expectancy-value of
philanthropic support for community colleges. Furthermore, the voices of philanthropists
themselves and community college alums could offer useful perspectives regarding the
motivation factors for choosing community colleges as recipients of their philanthropic dollars. I
touched on the issue of the lack of data on the various intangible benefits that the California
Community Foundations produce for the colleges they serve. It is imperative that statewide data
is collected on both intangible and tangible benefits and costs of the foundations. With this data,
further research can enrich future CBA and/or cost-effectiveness analysis to support evidencebased and data-informed decision making of investments in this important philanthropy sector.
Finally, this study does not explore the inequity of funding for community colleges from a state
154
and legislative perspective and how it correlates to social justice and economic mobility
opportunities for students of color, low-income students, and students from underserved
communities. The need for philanthropic support to improve programs, facilities, and
scholarships and to close funding gaps for community colleges is a significant problem to
address through increased scholarly attention and research.
Implications for Practice
This mixed-methods dissertation examined the KMO factors that support or hinder
California’s community college foundations’ fundraising success. The study’s motivation
centered on providing direction based on research for achieving higher levels of philanthropic
success for community college foundations, which serve close to 2 million students in California
(CCCCO, 2022). Through a mixed-methods approach of document analysis and quantitative and
qualitative data collection, this study aims to add to the current literature about community
college fundraising success (Bergstrom, 2015; Hall, 2002; Lanning, 2008a, 2008b; Razo, 2022;
Ryan, 2003).
The following research questions drove the design, methodology, data analysis, and
recommendations:
1. What knowledge factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
2. What motivational factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
3. What organizational factors hinder or support philanthropic success at California’s
community colleges?
155
Utilizing Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis as the conceptual framework and situated
EVT (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) as the theoretical framework, this study aimed to provide
recommendations to improve fundraising success for the mission of CCCs (CCCCO, 2022).
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analytical framework structured the review of literature, which
identified the three knowledge and skill factors, including declarative, procedural, and
conceptual knowledge gained through experience and tenure of foundation leaders (CASE, 2015)
and adaptable leadership in complex political environments (Razo, 2022). The study identifies
two motivational factors: self-regulation and goal-setting strategies to identify the expected value
and persist through fundraising tasks (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Lastly, two organizational
factors included a gap in training the community college system’s highly political and complex
culture (Razo, 2022) and the role of human capital investments in supporting fundraising
operations (FCCC, 2012). Each factor, validated through quantitative, qualitative, and document
analysis, identified KMO factors that differentiated the highest-performing foundations from
their peers. Common characteristics of the highest-performing foundations are (a) experienced
leaders who adapt and operate in a highly complex and political environment, multi-functional
and resourceful in an environment with scarce resources; (b) strategic foresight to align
fundraising goals with the college’s strategic priorities and direction; (c) self-efficacy and selfregulation strategies to maintain motivation through intentional interactions with the student
population; (d) organizational resources of human capital to carry out the organization’s mission;
and (e) fiscal strength measured by the size of total assets and endowment size.
Critical behaviors associated with self-regulatory processes include intentional reminders
of the value of the expected outcome by arranging opportunities to meet students who are the
beneficiaries of the fundraising efforts and creating strategic goals or priorities aligned to the
156
college institution’s needs to create accountability, the expected value of the foundation efforts
and buy-in from college stakeholders and leaders. High self-efficacy promotes an individual to
begin, persist through, and complete a task with a commitment to invest the mental effort to
achieve a successful outcome (Bandura, 1997, 2000; Clark & Estes, 2008; Eccles, 2006; Pintrich,
2003; Pritchard, 2018).
More importantly, differences between the highest-performing foundations reveal that
organizational assets and staff size strongly correlate with higher fundraising effectiveness per
FTE. High-performing foundations highlight knowledge and motivation influences on
performance. As stated, foundations reporting higher levels of fundraising effectiveness have
leaders who self-regulate, implement motivational strategies such as goal setting and have more
staff and organizational capacity in assets compared to the remaining foundations in the study.
Conclusion
This study’s recommendations aim to enhance fundraising organizational capacity and
effectiveness through increased human capital, professional development, and codification of
statewide baselines to support goal setting and benchmarking for CCCFs. Change
recommendations follow the NWKM (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The systemwide
approach to improving fundraising success for community college foundations centers on
integrating three critical changes in KMO factors, as posited by Clark and Estes (2008). Each of
these factors includes critical behavior changes that will need to occur to (a) increase the human
capital resources of foundations in the state, (b) establish baseline fundraising metrics statewide
with continued measurements of success annually, and (c) implement a systemwide plan to
enhance research-based professional development programs for new fundraisers in the
community college system to support their professional growth and success. By understanding
157
and identifying critical behaviors and key performance indicators that affect fundraising success,
intervention strategies can support the increased capacity of CCCFs to raise resources in support
of the mission of CCCs and their students.
158
References
Abrahamson, K. (2006). The ethics of rationing education in the California community colleges.
California State University, Sacramento.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2016). Community colleges past to present.
http://www.aacc.nche.edu?AboutCC/history/Pages/pasttopresent.aspx
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2020). Knowledge center.
https://agb.org/knowledge-center/institutions/foundations/
Baker, B. D. (2017). How money matters for schools. Learning Policy Institute.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bergstrom, M. A. (2015). Effective fundraising practices in public community colleges
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Carolina.
Boggs, G. R. (2003). Leadership context for the twenty-first century. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2003(123), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.118
Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J. V. (2011). Reframing academic leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Boodrookas, G. (2023, July 18). Benchmarking California’s community college foundations:
Success factors and suggestions for growth [PowerPoint slides]. Philanthropia
Consulting.
Bornstein, R. (2003). Legitimacy in the academic presidency: From entrance to exit. Praeger.
159
Botchkarev, A., & Andru, P. (2011). A return on investment as a metric for evaluating
information systems: Taxonomy and application. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Information, Knowledge, and Management, 6, 245–269. https://doi.org/10.28945/1535
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1900–1985. Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195048155.001.0001
California Community College Chancellors Office. (2020). Manual for auxiliary organizations.
https://www.cccco.edu//media/CCCCO-Website
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2022). Fast facts.
https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Key-Facts
California Competes. (2021). California budget insights.
https://californiacompetes.org/resources/2022-23-budget-insights/
California State University. (2022). CSU donor support. https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-thecsu/student-success/philanthropic-support/Documents/Donor-Support-2022-23.pdf
California State University, Northridge Foundation. (2018). Endowment portfolio investment
holdings snapshot as of June 30, 2018.
https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/Investment%20Holdings%20Snapshot%2006-
30-2018.pdf
Campaign for College Opportunity. (2021). Chutes or ladders, strengthening California
community college transfer so more students earn the degrees they seek.
https://collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/imported-files/Chutes-or-Ladders-finalweb.pdf
160
Chandra Sekhar, S. (2011). Benchmarking. Global Journal of Business Management, 5(10),
001–004.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy. (2011). California dermatologist gives record 14 million dollar
gift. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/california-dermatologist-gives-record-14-
million-gift/
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (2010). Community college foundations
survey [CASE white paper].
https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/CCF_WhitePaper%20%281%29.pdf
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (2015). Results from the 2014 CASE survey
of community college foundations. (ED571324). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED571324.pdf
Creswell & Creswell. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Curti, M., & Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping of American higher education.
Rutgers University Press.
Desjardins, C. (2001). The leading edge: Competencies for community college leadership in the
new millennium. League for Innovation in the Community College.
Di Mento, M., & Theis, M. (2019, July 18). As the cost of a 4-year degree soars, community
colleges reap more gifts. Chronicle of Philanthropy.
161
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/as-the-cost-of-a-4-year-degree-soars-communitycolleges-reap-more-big-gifts/
Drezner, N. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in American higher education. ASHE Higher
Education Report, 37(2), 1–211.
Dubnick, M. J., & Frederickson, H. G. (2011). Introduction. In M. J. Dubnick & H. George
Frederickson (Eds.), Accountable governance: Problems and promises (pp. xi–xxx).
M.E. Sharpe.
Duncan, M. E., & Ball, C. (2011). Giving voice: Advocating for the community college. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(156), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.467
Eccles, J. S. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value
theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101859.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
Education Advisory Board. (2021). How community colleges attract major gifts.
https://eab.com/insights/daily-briefing/advancement/how-community-colleges-areattracting-major-gifts/
Foundation for California Community Colleges. (2012). California Community Colleges
Foundations survey summary.
162
Fowler, W. J., & Monk, D. H. (2001). A primer for making cost adjustments in education (NCES
2001–323). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
Fuller, J., & Raman, M. (2022). The partnership imperative: Community colleges, employers,
and America’s chronic skills gap. The American Association of Community Colleges,
Harvard Business School. https://www.hbs.edu/managing-the-future-ofwork/Documents/research/The%20Partnership%20Imperative%2012.12.2022.pdf
Gagliardi, J., Espinosa, L., Turk, J., & Taylor, M. (2017). American college president study
2017. American Council on Education.
Gearhart, D., & Miller, M. (2018). Perspectives on time commitment to fundraising by
community college presidents. Journal of Research on the College President, 2.
https://collegepresidentresearch.uark.edu/2018/12/perspectives-on-time-commitment-tofundraising-by-community-college-presidents/
Glass, J. C., Jr., & Jackson, K. L. (1998). Integrating resource development and institutional
planning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(8), 715–739.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1066892980220802
Goldrick-Rab, S., Coca, V., Looker, E., & Baker-Smith, C. (2019). California community
colleges: Real college survey. Wisconsin HOPE Lab.
https://www.evc.edu/sites/default/files/2022-04/RealCollege-CCCCO-Report.pdf
Goldrick-Rab, S., Richardson, J., & Hernandez, A. (2017). Hungry and homeless in college:
Results from a national study of basic needs insecurity in higher education. Wisconsin
HOPE Lab.
Goldstein, M. (2003). Weathering the budgetary storm. Presidency, 6(2), 18–23.
163
Goodman, J., & Conway, C. (2017). Largest-ever gift to UCSF honors philanthropist Helen
Diller. University of California San Francisco.
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/largest-ever-gift-ucsf-honors-philanthropisthelen-diller
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. (2018). The master plan for higher education in
California and state workforce needs a review. https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20181226-
Master_Plan_Report.pdf
Hall, M. R. (2002). Building on relationships: A fundraising approach for community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(1), 47–60.
https://doi.org/10.1080/106689202753365007
Hanson, M. (2022). College tuition inflation rate. Education Data Initiative.
https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate
Hartman, W., & Fay, T. (1996). Cost-effectiveness of instructional support teams in
Pennsylvania (Policy Paper Number 9). Center for Special Education Finance.
Heaton, P. (2015). Opportunity knocking: How community college presidents can lead a new era
of advancement. Council of Advancement in Support of Education.
The Hope Center for College, Community, and Justice. (2021). The Hope Center Survey 2021:
Basic needs insecurity during the ongoing pandemic.
https://hope.temple.edu/sites/hope/files/media/document/HopeSurveyReport2021.pdf
The Institute for College Access and Success. (2021). What California college students need
policymakers to know about how COVID-19 has affected them. https://ticas.org/howcovid-19-has-affected-ca-college-students/
Johns Hopkins University. (n.d.). Mission and history. https://www.jhu.edu/about/history/
164
Joliet Junior College. (2021). First community college. https://jjc.edu/about-jjc/history
Kaplan, A. E. (2020). Volunteer survey in support of education. Council for Advancement and
Support of Education. https://www.case.org/resources/charitable-giving-us-colleges-anduniversities-reached-4950-billion-virtually-unchanged
Kaplan, A. E. (2022). Charitable giving to U.S. colleges and universities rose 12.5% during the
2022 academic fiscal year to a high of $59.5 billion. Giving from all sources increased.
Council for Advancement in Support of Education.
https://www.case.org/resources/giving-us-colleges-and-universities-increased-125-fiscalyear-2022
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kozobarich, J. (2000). Institutional advancement. New Directions for Higher Education,
2000(111), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.11103
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kubik, S., & Flahaven, B. (2018, October 4). What sets community college foundations apart?
[Paper presentation]. Conference for Community College Advancement, Palm Springs,
CA, United States.
Lanning, P. (2008a). Reaching critical mass: Why community colleges need to increase private
funding. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Lanning, P. (2008b, January 8). The true state of fund raising at two-year colleges. Community
College Times.
https://www.communitycollegetimes.com/articlecfm?TopicId+17&ArticleID=710
165
Lasher, W. F., & Cook, W. B. (1996). Toward a theory of fundraising in higher education.
Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1996.0002
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2023). California State University system budget.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4671
Levin, H. M. (1983). Cost-effectiveness: A primer. Sage.
Levin, H. M., & García, E. (2018). Accelerating community college graduation rates: A benefitcost analysis. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(1), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1313087
Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications.
Sage.
Levin, J. S. (2000, April 24–28). The revised institution: The community college mission at the
end of the 20th century. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, United States.
Liaison Committee of the State Board of Education and the Regents of the University of
California. (1960). A master plan for higher education in California. California State
Department of Education.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Los Angeles City College. (2016). About Herb Albert.
https://www.lacc.edu/academics/pathways/pae/music-dept/about
Ma, J., & Matea, P. (2022). Trends in college pricing and student aid 2022. College Board.
https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/trends-in-college-pricing-student-aid2022.pdf
166
MacTaggart, T. (2009). When “good enough” is not good enough. Trusteeship (Washington,
D.C.), 17(5), 29–34.
Mayer, C. E. (2011). Taxing times: In troubled times, it pays to communicate an institution’s
value to the community. Currents, 37(4), 26–31.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Monk, D. M. (1993, November). The costs of systematic education reform: Conceptual issues
and preliminary estimates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, United States.
Moore, M. A., Boardman, A. E., Vining, A. R., Weimer, D. L., & Greenberg, D. H. (2004). Just
give me a number! Practical values for the social discount rate. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 23(4), 789–812. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20047
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Tuition costs of colleges and universities. Fast
facts. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Integrated Education Post Secondary Data
System Survey Components: 2-year public institution enrollments.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data
Nelson, S. J. (2012). Decades of chaos and revolution: Showdowns for college presidents.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Network for California Community College Foundations. (2023). California Community College
Foundations survey.
Patton, M. (2005). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE.
167
Picus, L. O. (1994). A conceptual framework for analyzing the costs of alternative assessment.
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pisors, J. (2022). Fundraising challenges and expectations facing university presidents: A
qualitative multiple case study analysis of public university presidents [Unpublished
doctoral dissertation]. Texas Tech University.
Pritchard, M. (2018). Evaluation of thesis completion in a graduate blended learning program
[Unpublished doctoral Dissertation]. University of Southern California.
Razo, B. F. (2022). Community college foundations: Increasing philanthropic success.
(Publication No. 29060085) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Reyes, M., Dache-Gerbino, A., Rios-Aguilar, C., González-Canché, M., & Deil-Amen, R.
(2018). The geography of opportunity in community colleges: The role of the local labor
market in students’ decisions to persist and succeed. Community College Review, 47(1),
31–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552118818321
Rios-Aguilar, C., & Deil-Amen, R. (2019). Taking history, funding, and current challenges into
account when discussing race, ethnicity, and completion in community colleges. In L. L.
Espinosa, J. M. Turk, M. Taylor, & H. M. Chessman (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in higher
education: A status report (pp. 127–132). American Council on Education.
https://www.equityinhighered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Race-and-Ethnicity-inHigher-Education.pdf
168
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the
Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3), 227–238.
https://doi.org/10.2307/975901
Royal, A. (2022). Competency handbook for community college leaders. American Association
of Community Colleges.
Ryan, E. F. (2003). Sources and information: Development and fundraising within community
colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2003(124), 95–104.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.138
Santa Monica College. (2017). Unflinching Santa Monica College: A celebration of distinction.
https://www.smc.edu/about/documents/SMC-HistoricalBrochure.pdf
Scutari, M. (2019, December 1). What does it take for community colleges to raise more money?
Inside Philanthropy. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2019/12/1/what-does-ittake-for-community-colleges-to-raise-more-money
Secules, S., McCall, C., Mejia, J. A., Beebe, C., Masters, A. S., L. Sánchez-Peña, M., &
Svyantek, M. (2021). Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity
research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community. Journal of Engineering
Education, 110(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20377
Sigma Plus Statistiek. (2023). Definition of Spearman rank order correlation. https://www.spsstutorials.com/spearman-rank-correlation/
Titus, M. A., Vamosiu, A., Buenaflor, S. H., & Lukszo, C. M. (2021). Persistent cost efficiency
at public community colleges in the US: A stochastic frontier analysis. Research in
Higher Education, 62, 1168–1197 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-021-09634-y
Trachtenberg, S. J. (2008). Bottom line, bottom line. Trusteeship, 16(5), 20–24.
169
University of California Office of the President. (n.d.). The Donahoe Higher Education Act.
https://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/donahoe.htm
University of Southern California. (2019). Financial report 2019.
https://customsitesmedia.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2020/07/15205539/USC2019-Annual-ReportFINAL.pdf
U.S. Agency for International Development. (2017). Cost-benefit analysis.
https://www.usaid.gov/economic-growth-and-trade/cost-benefit-analysis
Valbrun, M. (2019). The big gift you haven’t heard about. Inside Higher Education.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/02/08/large-donation-small-communitycollege-changes-outlook-fund-raising-two-year
Villaverde, L. (2008). Feminist theories and education. Peter Lang.
Whitford, E. (2021, June 16). MacKenzie gifts millions of dollars to community colleges and
regional universities and non-profits. Inside Higher Education.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/06/16/mackenzie-scott-gifts-millionscommunity-colleges-regional-colleges-and-nonprofits
Yamada, T. (2010). Restructuring the California State University: A call to action. The NEA
Higher Education Journal, 91–106.
Yuen, V. (2020). The 78 billion community college funding shortfall. Center for American
Progress.
170
Appendix A: Distinction Between Auxiliary Organization and Independent Corporation
Appendix A: Distinction Between Auxiliary Organization and Independent Corporation
Auxiliary organization Independent corporation
Purpose must be to promote or assist a
community college/district [Ed. Code,
72670(d)(1)].
Purpose can be for any charitable purpose
consistent with Internal Revenue Code
section 501(c)(3).
Gifts, funds, and property received must be used
for the benefit of the community college [Ed.
Code, 72670(d)(1)].
Expenditures may be for any purpose not
prohibited under the IRS Code and not
prohibited by the organization’s bylaws.
May perform only functions that are an integral
part of the community college educational
program, such as scholarships, alumni activities,
public relations programs, bookstore, food
services (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, 59259).
May carry on any activities not prohibited
under the Internal Revenue Code.
Audit must meet Title 5, California Department
of Finance, and IRS regulations and standards.
Must provide audit report to district [Ed. Code.,
72672(a); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, 59270].
No audit required unless gross revenue of
$2 million or more. Not required to
provide any audit report to district (Not
for Profit Integrity Act).
Any of its board of directors are appointed or
approved by the district’s trustees or selected,
ex officio, from Trustees, employees, or
students [Ed. Code, 72670(d)(2)].
Selection of board members governed
solely in accordance with the
organization’s articles of incorporation
and bylaws.
District CEO is responsible for ensuring
organization expenditures comply with district
policies, propriety of expenditures, and
financial reporting integrity [Ed. Code,
72672(b)].
Expenditures are subject to approval of
organization’s governing board. No
district oversight or control.
The district may provide district employees to
perform services under the direction of the
auxiliary organization as part of a documented
exchange of value. The form and manner of
district reimbursement by auxiliary organization
must be agreed to by the district and auxiliary,
and may include tangible or intangible benefits.
[Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, 59257(j)(6)].
District cannot provide publicly funded
financial support (or services provided
by district employees) to independent
organizations (Cal. Const., art. XVI, 6).
District can enter into a contract with an
independent organization that provides
for a 100% quid pro quo exchange of
consideration.
The organization may be responsible for paying
rent for use of district facilities, and is
responsible for maintenance and payment of
operating expenses [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5,
59257(5) and (8)].
The same – must reimburse district the
market value for use of public property,
services, etc.
Note. Reprinted from Auxiliary Organization Manual California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office, 2020, pp 17–18. (https://www.cccco.edu/-/media/CCCCO-Website/College-
171
Finance-and-Facilities/Manuals/Aux-Manual-2021/cccco-auxiliary-organization-manual123020-a11y.pdf). In the public domain.
172
Appendix B: Network of California Community College Foundations Survey
Overview / Structure
1. What is the full legal name of your foundation? ____________________________________
2. In what year were you founded / when did you receive your 501(c)3 status? _____________
3. What was the last day of your most recently completed fiscal year? ____________________
4. What is your structure (Auxiliary, Independent, etc.)? ________________________________
5. What is the complete official title of your lead staff member (executive director, CEO, vice
president, etc.)? _____________________________________________________________
6. How long has that staff member been in their position? _____________________________
7. To whom does that staff member report? ________________________________________
8. What is the size of your staff in FTE? _____________________________________________
9. What is the breakdown between various staff positions by FTE? Please answer below:
a. Development staff: _______________
b. Administrative staff: _______________
c. Marketing and communications staff: _______________
d. Scholarship staff: _______________
e. Finance: _______________
f. Other staff: _______________
10. Do you use consultants? YES ☐ NO ☐
If answered Yes, for what types of work/projects do you use consultants?
173
Assets
11. What were your total gross and net assets as of the close of your most recent fiscal year?
Total gross: _______________
Net assets: _______________
12. Do you have a permanently restricted endowment? YES ☐ NO ☐
If answered Yes, how large is the endowment and for what purposes is it endowed? (e.g.,
scholarship endowment(s), operating endowment, program endowment(s))
13. What is your endowment payout / distribution policy? (e.g., x% of market value
averaged over X number of quarters/years)
14. How is your payout policy constructed (what goes into determining the payout rate)?
Contributions / Fundraising
15. Please provide your fundraising totals (restricted and unrestricted) for your last three
completed fiscal years:
a. 2019–2020: _______________
b. 2020–2021: _______________
c. 2021–2022: _______________
Earned Income
16. Do you have any earned income streams? YES ☐ NO ☐
If answered Yes, what have they generated for each of your last three completed fiscal
years?
a. 2019–2020: _______________
b. 2020–2021: _______________
c. 2021–2022: _______________
Investment Revenue
17. Please provide your investment income totals (realized gains/losses, unrealized gains/losses,
and dividends) for your last three completed fiscal years:
a. 2019–2020: _______________
b. 2020–2021: _______________
c. 2021–2022: _______________
Expenses / Distributions
18. What were your total distributions during your most recently completed fiscal year to
scholarships, college programs, and other college needs? Please answer below:
a. Scholarships: total $ distributed: _________________________________________
b. Scholarships: # of scholarships distributed: _________________________________
c. Scholarships: # of scholarships recipients: __________________________________
174
d. College programs: ______________________________________________________
e. Other college needs (e.g., capital projects, bond measures, etc.): ________________
19. What was the total operating expense* of your foundation for your most recently
completed fiscal year? ________________________________________________________
*This may be calculated from your functional expense report in your financials or from Part
IX of your most recent Form 990 (subtract lines 1 and 2 from line 25). (e.g., staff
compensation, rent, utilities, fundraising, program administration admin, etc. - DO NOT
include distributions to your college or district)
20. What percentage of your operating expense budget does the college or district that you
serve pay?
__________________________________________________________________
Other
21. Do you have a current strategic plan and/or strategic goals? YES ☐ NO ☐
22. What are your three biggest challenges?
23. What is the most useful thing NCCCF could provide to support your
work?
24. Do you assess gift fees? YES ☐ NO ☐
If answered Yes, what amount(s)/percentage(s)? _______________
25. Do you have a minimum gift/giving policy for board members? YES ☐ NO ☐
26. Please attach a copy of your MOU between the college/district and foundation along with
your completed survey to info@ncccfweb.org.
175
Appendix C: Participant Recruitment Letter
Email Subject: Invitation to Participate in Research Study Interview – California Community
College Foundation’s Success Factors
Dear [Participant’s Name],
I hope this message finds you well. As a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California, I am conducting an essential research study on the success factors of California’s
Community College Foundations. I am seeking your invaluable insights and experiences as an
incumbent employee of the Foundation to better understand the organization’s achievements in
the realm of fundraising.
This study aims to learn more about your thoughts and experiences in relation to
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to fundraising success for
California Community Colleges. Your involvement is crucial to assisting us in understanding
these factors to inform the California community college foundation field.
Your participation in this research is voluntary, and I am appreciative. The interview will
be approximately 1 hour in duration. You are free to skip any questions or discontinue the
interview at any point. I will treat your candid responses with the utmost confidentiality and will
code all personal information with pseudonyms to ensure anonymity.
I assure you that your valuable input will play a vital role in shaping the outcome of this
study and will provide valuable insights for the enhancement of California’s Community College
Foundation’s fundraising success.
To confirm your participation, please click the link: [Insert Link].
Thank you once again for your consideration, and I look forward to collaborating with
you on this research. If you have questions, please contact me at jpcruz@usc.edu. If at any point
176
you are unsatisfied with how this study is being conducted, please contact Dr. Dennis Hocevar,
University of Southern California Professor and Dissertation Committee Chair, at
hocevar@usc.edu.
Sincerely,
Jaqueline Cruz, Doctoral Candidate, University of Southern California
177
Appendix D: Interview Protocol
Research questions:
1. What are knowledge factors that contribute to successful fundraising for California
Community Colleges?
2. What motivation factors contribute to successful fundraising for California
Community Colleges?
3. What organizational factors contribute to successful fundraising in California
Community Colleges?
Respondent type: Foundation executive directors and chief development officers in the
California community college system
Introduction to the Interview
Thank you for participating in our qualitative research project interview. My name is
Jaqueline Cruz. I am a candidate in the doctoral program for organizational leadership and
change at the USC Rossier School of Education.
This study aims to learn more about your thoughts and experiences in relation to
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to successful fundraising for
California’s community college foundations. Your involvement is crucial to assisting us in
understanding these factors to inform the California community college foundation field.
It is important to note that your participation in this study is optional and that you are free
to end it anytime. I will anonymize your replies and protect your privacy using pseudonyms in
all reporting and/or publication.
Once again, your responses will remain confidential, as any of the identifying
information, including your name, and I will give the name of the organization a pseudonym and
178
kept secure by the researcher. After the conclusion of the research, I will destroy the interview’s
data.
Do I have your consent to record the interview?
Do I have your consent to use a transcriber during the interview?
The interview is a semi-structured interview with a length of approximately 1 hour. It has
20 open-ended questions to better understand your ideas, past experiences, and viewpoints on
community college foundation fundraising. I value your candor and authenticity and urge you to
share as much or as little as you feel comfortable doing. I really appreciate you taking the time to
tell me about your experiences. This study aims to learn more about your thoughts and
experiences in relation to knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
effective fundraising for California community colleges. Your participation will provide insights
into these factors, and this study will assist in bringing about findings that can positively change
the effectiveness of the California community college system’s fundraising efforts.
Table D1
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Probes
RQ
addressed Key concept addressed
What is your role in the
organization?
1 Success factors:
knowledge, declarative
What is your organization’s
mission?
1 Success factors:
knowledge, declarative
How does your role contribute
to achieving the
organization’s goal?
What would you
say is the
percentage of
time you spent
on fundraising
activities?
1 Success factors:
knowledge, declarative
What are the foundation’s
biggest achievements?
1 Success factors:
knowledge, declarative
179
Interview questions Probes
RQ
addressed Key concept addressed
Please share the steps taken
by the foundation to conduct
regular evaluations of its
success.
1 Success factors:
knowledge, procedural
What are the steps the
foundation takes to set its
fundraising priorities and
goals?
1 Success factors:
knowledge, procedural
What are the steps the
foundation takes to cultivate
its donors?
1 Success factors:
knowledge, procedural
What are the steps the
foundation takes to steward
its donors?
1 Success factors:
knowledge, procedural
What would you say are your
areas of strength that
contribute to the success of
the foundation?
Areas for
improvement?
1 Success factors:
knowledge,
metacognitive
What would you say are the
types of professional
development experiences,
training, and education
opportunities that contribute
to fundraising success?
1 Success factors:
knowledge,
metacognitive
Reflecting on your
experiences, can you
identify any learning
obstacles or challenges you
faced while familiarizing
yourself with college
foundation best practices
and success factors?
If so, how did
you overcome
them?
1 Success factors:
knowledge,
metacognitive
What self-regulation
techniques do you employ to
ensure you stay motivated
and focused while you meet
the diverse factors
contributing to the success
of your college Foundation?
1 Success factors:
knowledge,
metacognitive
What helps you build
confidence to do your job at
the foundation?
2 Success factors:
motivation, selfefficacy
180
Interview questions Probes
RQ
addressed Key concept addressed
How large is your board? Do you have a
gift minimum
for your board?
2 Success factors:
motivation, value
What motivates you to
continue to raise funds for
the community college(s)
you serve?
2 Success factors:
motivation, value
How do you receive feedback
on your work?
Is the feedback
helpful?
3 Success factors:
organization, cultural
setting
What are some strategies you
implement to capitalize on
support from local
employers, corporations,
alumni, and wealthy donors?
3 Success factors:
organization, cultural
setting
What cultural factors within
the foundation contribute to
a strong sense of community
and shared purpose among
its staff?
How does this
support
fundraising
success?
3 Success factors:
organization, cultural
models
How does the foundation
culture emphasize
entrepreneurship,
innovation, creativity, and
continuous improvement?
How about the
college
culture?
3
Success factors:
organization, cultural
models
What would you say is the
percentage of time spent by
your institution’s President
on philanthropic/fundraising
activities?
How frequently
do you meet or
speak to your
president about
fundraising
work?
3 Success factors:
organization, cultural
models
What organizational supports
could strengthen the
capacity of California’s
community college
foundations to fulfill their
mission?
1–3 Success factors:
knowledge,
motivation,
organization
181
Conclusion to the Interview
Thank you for participating and taking the time to speak with me. Your opinions and
experiences regarding the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contribute to
effective fundraising in the community college system were impactful. Your participation is
essential to helping me understand the complexities and subtleties of this problem.
Do you have any questions for me?
I want to remind you that you can withdraw your consent to participate in this study at
any time. If you have questions after today, please reach out at any point.
Thank you again for participating in this study.
182
Appendix E: Request to Access NCCCF Survey
To: Liz Mc Cann, President of the Network for California Community College Foundations
From: Jaqueline Cruz, A doctoral student at the University of Southern California, Rossier
School of Education
Subject: Formal Request to Use the Raw Data of the 2023 NCCCF Survey to Analyze and
Inform a Research Study on California’s Community College Foundations
Dear President Mc Cann,
This letter is to respectfully request access to the raw data of the 2023 Foundation Survey
deployed by the NCCCF in Spring of 2023. The most recent statewide survey was in 2023; thus,
my research study will review the past survey results from 2012 as part of the literature review
and a document analysis. Furthermore, the study will use descriptive statistics to inform the
study. The study’s objective is to research California’s community colleges’ philanthropic
success and to provide recommendations based on the findings of the study using Clark and
Estes’s (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization framework.
I wanted to mention three points regarding the protocol for the study and the protection of
the data.
I am protecting the respondents’ information, each organization, and the results of the
study with anonymity by using pseudonyms.
I will not identify or publicize organizational names in this study.
I will store the data, all research notes, and all other work related to the study within
USC’s duo authentication.
183
Please feel free to contact me with any questions using my cell number. Thank you for
your time and for your consideration of this request.
Respectfully,
Jaqueline Cruz, Doctoral Candidate, University of Southern California | jpcruz@usc.edu
184
Appendix F: Approval to Access NCCCF Survey
185
Appendix G: Recommendations for Practice Presented to the NCCCF Board
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
Appendix H: Logic Models
Figure H1
Program Theory-Enhance Fundraising Effectiveness for California Community College
Foundations
198
Table H1
Focus Area and Indicators
Focus area Indicators
Influential factors Community college executive leadership; community
college chancellor’s office; Network for California
Community College Foundations; FCCC.
Resources Financial support and human resources;
communications; marketing team; professional
development and curriculum experts (CASE, CFRE,
Association of Governing Boards).
Activities Create a trust bank/steering team to create buy-in; costbenefit analysis presented to NCCCF and FCCC;
collect data from CANDID and IRS 990s to capture
performance metrics; create baseline benchmarking
data dashboard; implementation; develop training
modules for presidents and practitioners; evaluation
and assessment; changes and improvement to the plan.
Outputs By the end of Year 1, increase participation in
professional development programs by 20% compared
to baseline levels.
Within 2 years, establish baseline fundraising metrics for
all California community college foundations and
implement data collection systems for ongoing
monitoring.
Within 3 years, achieve a 10% increase in funds raised
by community college foundations statewide compared
to the previous year.
Outcomes and impacts Within 4 years, secure policy changes that directly
support fundraising efforts, such as increased funding
allocations or streamlined administrative processes.
Within 5 years, establish partnerships with at least three
external organizations to expand fundraising
opportunities and resources for community college
foundations.
199
Table H2
Logic Model: Enhance Fundraising Effectiveness for California Community College
Foundations
Resources Activities Outputs
Short- and long-term
outcomes Impact
To accomplish
our set of
activities we
will need the
following:
To address our
problem or
asset we will
accomplish
the following
activities:
We expect that
once
accomplished,
these activities
will produce
the following
evidence or
service
delivery:
We expect that if
accomplished these
activities will lead to
the following
changes in 1–3 then
4–6 years:
We expect that
if
accomplished
these
activities will
lead to the
following
changes in 7–
10 years:
Financial
resources for
professional
development
programs.
Expertise in
fundraising
strategies and
techniques.
Collaboration
with
stakeholders
including
community
colleges,
foundations,
and policy
makers.
Access to data
for
establishing
baseline
metrics.
Develop and
implement
professional
development
programs:
Identify key
areas for
training
based on
research
findings.
Design
workshops,
seminars, and
online
courses
focusing on
knowledge
and skills
development.
Collaborate
with industry
experts and
experienced
fundraisers to
deliver
training
sessions.
Increased
participation
in professional
development
programs:
Number of
individuals
attending
training
sessions.
Feedback and
evaluation
scores from
participants.
Number of new
fundraising
strategies
implemented
by
participants.
Defend baseline
fundraising
metrics:
Established
KPIs for
measuring
fundraising
effectiveness.
Improved knowledge
and skills among
fundraising
practitioners:
Increased confidence
and competence in
implementing
effective fundraising
strategies.
Enhanced ability to
adapt to changing
environments and
overcome
challenges.
Enhanced fundraising
effectiveness:
Increased funds raised
by community
college foundations.
Improved alignment
of fundraising goals
with institutional
priorities and
strategic direction.
Strengthened
organizational
capacity:
Greater staff
engagement and
Long-term
sustainability
of California
community
college
foundations:
Continued
growth and
success in
fundraising
efforts.
Enhanced
support for
the mission
of
community
colleges and
the students
they serve.
200
Resources Activities Outputs
Short- and long-term
outcomes Impact
Collect data
from
CANDID and
IRS 990s to
capture
performance
metrics.
Data collection
tools and
systems in
place for
ongoing
monitoring
and
evaluation.
Implementation
of systemwide
plan:
Adoption of
recommended
strategies by
community
college
foundations.
Policy changes
enacted to
support
fundraising
efforts.
Partnerships
established
with external
organizations
for resource
sharing and
collaboration.
motivation in
fundraising
activities.
Enhanced
collaboration and
communication
within and across
foundations.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In the United States, higher education philanthropy totaled $59 billion in giving in fiscal year 2022. However, community colleges receive less than 4% of that support despite serving the largest and most diverse student population. In California, 1.8 million community college students, 70% of whom come from diverse ethnic backgrounds, look to the community college system to pursue economic mobility. This mixed-methods study examined the factors influencing fundraising success among California’s community college foundations, focusing on knowledge, motivation, and organizational dynamics. Grounded in a gap analysis and situated expectancy-value theory, the study addressed the impact of knowledge factors on philanthropic success, the motivational drivers shaping fundraising outcomes, and the organizational structures influencing effectiveness. Findings revealed that successful foundations demonstrate experienced leadership, strategic alignment with institutional goals, and robust organizational resources. Key knowledge factors identified were declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge, alongside adaptable leadership skills. Motivational factors center on self-regulation and goal-setting strategies, while organizational aspects emphasize human capital investments and training in navigating complex political environments. The dissertation proposes a logic model for enhancing fundraising effectiveness, guided by SMART goals. Activities include increasing participation in research-based professional development programs, establishing systemwide benchmarks using fundraising metrics and institutional data, and implementing systemwide plans for improved organizational capacity and fundraising infrastructure. The overarching aim is to strengthen the sustainability of California Community College Foundations, ensuring continued support for their educational mission and diverse student population. By offering practical insights and actionable recommendations, this research contributes to the advancement of philanthropy at community colleges and provides stakeholders with a roadmap to strengthen fundraising efforts and drive long-term outcomes, ultimately enriching the educational experience for millions of students.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion
PDF
The enactment of equitable mathematics teaching practices: an adapted gap analysis
PDF
Assessing and addressing random and systematic measurement error in performance indicators of institutional effectiveness in the community college
PDF
Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study
PDF
Closing the safety gap for airlines in emerging markets using the gap analysis model
PDF
Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study
PDF
Diversity management in local government: a gap analysis
PDF
Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence
PDF
Factors related to transfer and graduation in Latinx community college students
PDF
Finance in the California community college: Comparative analysis and benchmarking of instructional expenditures
PDF
Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis
PDF
Evaluation of thesis completion in a graduate blended learning program
PDF
Stigma, self-efficacy, and spheres of influence: factors that impact college success for formerly incarcerated college students
PDF
Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model
PDF
The barriers and facilitators of academic success for Black male students at a community college: a gap analysis
PDF
Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis
PDF
A longitudinal study on the opportunities to learn science and success in science in the California community college system
PDF
Factors contributing to student attrition at a healthcare university: a gap analysis
PDF
A-G course completion percentage upon high school graduation. A gap analysis
PDF
Developmental math in California community colleges and the delay to academic success
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cruz, Jaqueline Pacheco
(author)
Core Title
A gap analysis to find best practices in philanthropy to support California's community colleges and offer potential solutions to close performance gaps
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2024-08
Publication Date
07/30/2024
Defense Date
05/03/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
best practices for community college foundations,California community college foundation's cost-benefit analysis,college foundation's return on investment,community college foundations,community college foundation's gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest,philanthropy
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hocevar, Dennis (
committee chair
), Picus, Lawrence (
committee member
), Pritchard, Marcus (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jpcruz@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113998HJ0
Unique identifier
UC113998HJ0
Identifier
etd-CruzJaquel-13304.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CruzJaquel-13304
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Cruz, Jaqueline Pacheco
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240730-usctheses-batch-1189
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
best practices for community college foundations
California community college foundation's cost-benefit analysis
college foundation's return on investment
community college foundations
community college foundation's gap analysis